Public Document Pack
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid
Customer Services Executive Director: Douglas Hendry
Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD e.mail –douglas.hendry@argyll-bute.gov.uk
13 August 2014
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2014 at 10:15 AM , which you are requested to attend.
Douglas Hendry Executive Director - Customer Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES
(a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 17 June 2014 (Pages 1 - 20)
(b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 18 June 2014 at 10.30 am (Pages 21 - 50)
(c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 18 June 2014 at 2.00 pm (Pages 51 - 82)
(d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 30 June 2014 at 10.30 am (Pages 83 - 84)
(e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 30 June 2014 at 10.50 am (Pages 85 - 86)
(f) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 30 June 2014 at 11.10 am (Pages 87 - 88)
4. BURCOTE WIND: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR PROPOSED CREGGAN WIND FARM: BARR GLEN, NORTH EAST OF GLENBARR (REF: 14/00132/S36) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 89 - 120)
5. KAMES FISH FARMING LTD: FORMATION OF FINFISH FARM COMPRISING THE SITING OF 12 NO. 100 METRE CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES, ASSOCIATED FEED BARGE AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT: SHUNA SOUND, WEST OF SOUTH END HOUSE, ISLE OF SHUNA (REF: 14/00676/MFF) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 121 - 154)
6. ISLE OF LUING COMMUNITY TRUST: VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 10/1059/PP - CHANGE FROM WEST HIGHLAND SLATE TO SSQ MATACOUTA SLATE: THE ATLANTIC ISLANDS CENTRE, CULLIPOOL, ISLE OF LUING (REF: 14/01018/PP) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 155 - 172)
7. MRS JOAN ADAMSON: VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 12/02792/PP (ERECTION OF A BUILDING TO BE USED IN PART AS A COOKERY SCHOOL, INCLUDING FACILITATING WORKS AND INSTALLATION OF 2,000 LITRE CALOR GAS TANK, PARTLY RETROSPECTIVE) - CHANGE OF OPERATING HOURS AT CORRIE COOK SCHOOL: CORRIE HOUSE, CRAOBH HAVEN, LOCHGILPHEAD (REF: 14/01391/PP) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 173 - 186)
8. MR STEVEN CAMERON: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF MARITIME VISITORS FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING PROVISION OF NEW PUBLIC REALM WORKS: WHITE BUILDING, NORTH PIER, OBAN (REF: 14/01602/PP) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 187 - 204)
9. MR STEVEN CAMERON: DEMOLITION OF LISTED BUILDING AND ERECTION OF MARITIME VISITORS FACILITY: WHITE BUILDING, NORTH PIER, OBAN (REF: 14/01603/LIB) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 205 - 212)
10. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 213 - 214)
11. ROTHESAY WINDOWS - PROJECT HIGHLIGHT REPORT AND UPDATE Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 215 - 218)
12. PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION: RE-SCHEDULING OF TIME FRAME Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services (Pages 219 - 224)
13. PROMOTION OF THE PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAFT ACTION PROGRAMME Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services (Pages 225 - 230)
14. NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK 3 AND SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY 2014 Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services (Pages 231 - 240)
15. PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES - SERVICE QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT FQ1 2014-2015 (APRIL TO JUNE) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 241 - 244)
E1 16. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - 14/00164/ENBOC2 Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 245 - 250)
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 paragraph is:-
E1 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.
PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE
Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor George Freeman Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Robert Graham MacIntyre Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor James McQueen Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Richard Trail
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 3a MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the MAIN HALL, QUEENS HALL, DUNOON, ARGYLL on TUESDAY, 17 JUNE 2014
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor George Freeman Councillor James McQueen Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Richard Trail
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law David Eaglesham, Area Team Leader, Bute and Cowal Brian Close, Planning Officer Janet McAlister, Fyne Homes – for Applicant Iain Campbell, CP Architects – for Applicant David Campbell, GL Hearn – for Applicant Jane MacLeod, Supporter Stewart Shaw, Supporter John McAuslan, Objector Ann Campbell, Objector Councillor Bruce Marshall, Objector
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Rory Colville, Robin Currie, Mary-Jean Devon, Alistair MacDougall and Robert G MacIntyre.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. FYNE INITIATIVES: ERECTION OF TWO BLOCKS OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS (12 X 1 BEDROOM AND 5 X 2 BEDROOM) AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS: FORMER ST CUTHBERTS CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, 191 ARGYLL STREET, DUNOON, ARGYLL (REF: 14/00561/PP)
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He outlined the procedure that would be followed and the Head of Governance and Law identified those who wished to speak.
PLANNING
David Eaglesham presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. He advised that this proposal was for the erection of two blocks of flats on the site of the former St Cuthbert’s Church, Argyll Street, Dunoon. He referred to the report of handling and to two supplementary reports which were before Members and advised Page 2 that a late letter of support had been received from Alan Reid, MP who commended the scheme for the social and economic benefits this proposal would bring to Dunoon. He referred to the earlier site visit by Members and with the aid of slides spoke about the history of the area. He stated that the St Cuthbert’s Church had been a free standing building located centrally within the plot and on a slide he pointed out the Category A listed St John’s Church located north of the site. He advised that the report of handling set out the context of the development and confirmed that the proposal involved the erection of two blocks of flats on two distinct parts of the site. Block A would be erected on the lower part of the site fronting Argyll Street providing 9 flats within a three storey development. The mix for Block A would be 6 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed flats. Block B would be erected on the higher part of the site fronting Royal Crescent and Albert Crescent and would create 8 flats within a split level two/three storey development. The mix for Block B would be 6 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed flats. He advised that access to the site was proposed via Albert Crescent which would involve the realignment of Albert Crescent and the repositioning of parking bays. He confirmed that 4 car parking spaces and a turning area would be provided for Block B. He also advised of communal bin areas, the installation of surface water drainage system, the erection of retaining walls and ground engineering works and landscaping, shrub planting and boundary treatments. In terms of planning policy he advised that the site was located within the Dunoon Town Centre and that as well as the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 the proposal had also been assessed against policies LP HOU 1, LP HOU 2, LP ENV 19, LP TRAN 6 and Appendix C of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009. He referred to the statutory consultation carried out and confirmed that no objections to the development had been received from Roads subject to conditions and no objection from Scottish Water. He advised that Historic Scotland had not objected in terms of the impact on the setting of St John’s Church but had made comment regarding the choice of external materials for Block B. He stated that an objection had been received from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland on the grounds that the design still did not meet standards required for the site which was their same reason for objection to an earlier application submitted and withdrawn. In terms of contributors he confirmed that 75 expressions of support had been received which included the late letter of support from Alan Reid MP. He stated that 35 objections had been received including from Councillor Michael Breslin and Councillor Bruce Marshall. Grounds for objection were mainly related to design, parking/traffic, loss of amenity and Applicant motives. He confirmed that all technical requirements for the development had been met and referred to extensive discussions carried out with the Applicant over a number of years. He advised that a number of alternative schemes had been brought forward by a number of architects. He stated that this included a previous application submitted last year by the same Architect which had attracted a lot of objection and which was subsequently withdrawn. He confirmed that a lot of the issues raised at that time had tried to be addressed and he confirmed that he felt that the design submitted could be approved subject to conditions.
APPLICANT
Page 3
Janet McAlister advised that she was Technical Services Director of Fyne Homes and that she was here today to give some information on the Fyne Homes Group and the importance this project had in meeting the increasing demand for affordable housing in Dunoon and the surrounding Cowal area. She advised that she was joined by Iain Campbell of CP Architects who would speak in relation to the design of the scheme and the considerable pre application consultation which had taken place with the Council’s Planning Department. She advised that the third member of their team was David Campbell of GL Hearn (Planning Consultants) who would detail how Fyne Homes’ planning application for 17 affordable homes satisfied the requirements of the adopted Local Plan and the proposed Local Development Plan. Janet advised that Fyne Homes was the parent company of Fyne Initiatives and Fyne Futures and was a Registered Social Landlord who has operated in Argyll since 1936. She added that Fyne Homes was also a Registered Scottish Charity, that they had an open membership and that it was governed by a voluntary management committee. She confirmed that Fyne Homes’ areas of operation included Bute, Cowal, Mid Argyll and Kintyre and that they had local offices in Rothesay, Dunoon, Lochgilphead and Campbeltown. The Fyne Homes Group had approximately 50 members of staff employed throughout Argyll and Bute and they prided themselves on being the landlord of choice in their area. She stated that Fyne Homes spend around £5 million per annum on new build development, capital improvements and maintenance to their housing stock. She said that this spend was almost exclusively carried out by Argyll and Bute based companies which further supported the fragile local economy. She advised that the St Cuthbert’s development would help sustain jobs in Argyll and was likely to create local employment opportunities including increased skills and knowledge during the construction period. She added that the increased activity in the town centre would also result in benefits to local businesses and services and would boost the economy of Dunoon. She stated that Fyne Homes proudly served the communities of Bute, Cowal, Mid Argyll and Kintyre and delivered services which met the needs and aspirations of their tenants. She said that they had a proven track record of providing quality, energy efficient, affordable homes in these areas through their capital investment and new build programmes. She explained that quality and design was high on Fyne Homes’ agenda and that this could be demonstrated through the number of prestigious awards they had received for various housing developments including 18 rural affordable homes on the Isle of Gigha, A’Chrannaig on Bute, 4 rural homes in Kilmun and Tigh-na-Claddich in Innellan. She asked Members to note that the award winning developments on Gigha and in Kilmun were designed and delivered by CP Architects. She confirmed that Fyne Homes owned and managed 1473 properties across Argyll and Bute with 354 of these homes in the Dunoon area. She stated that they had a strong tradition of working extremely closely with those who lived and worked in their communities and that the provision of 17 homes through their St Cuthbert’s development would only strengthen what they as an organisation aimed to achieve through their mission statement which was “Building sustainable communities”. She advised that later on in the presentation she should would discuss the funding and demand factors of the application but in the meantime would like to hand over to Iain Campbell of CP Architects. Page 4
Iain Campbell advised that he had been the Principal of CP Architects since its formation in 2004. He stated that they had worked with all 4 housing associations throughout Argyll and had extensive experience of designing buildings in sensitive locations including award winning residential affordable housing projects with Fyne Homes. Referring to the St Cuthbert’s site he advised that it had lain vacant since the mid 1990’s when the former church was demolished. He advised that the site was located on the north edge of the town centre retail area and that it was an important and prominent site with dual frontage – the busy Argyll Street on the east and Albert Crescent/Royal Crescent on the west with the Grade B Dunoon Burgh Hall adjoining to the north and the Grade A St John’s Church beyond to the north west. He provided a brief background history of the site and advised that in the most recent past the site had planning consent granted in 1997 for a residential development for 15 units and that Fyne Homes acquired the site in early 2000. He advised that the site was steeply sloping with irregular shape and dual frontage. Referring to a slide he explained that land shaded in green on Argyll Street was currently leased to the Council until 2015 where under the Special Area for Action resulted in public seating and interpretation being provided. He confirmed that their plans recognised this community asset which was integrated into their design solution. He advised that over the last year they had developed an earlier scheme submitted in December 2013 and subsequently withdrawn in January 204 after concerns were raised by both planning and objectors regarding density, siting, design and materials. He indicated that they had worked very closely with Planning, including Roads and Amenity Services which had resulted in an improved scheme which addressed the key design issues and was now supported by Planning and all consultees. He confirmed that consultation with Building Control had also been undertaken regarding the access on Argyll Street and he confirmed that agreement had been reached in this respect. He then went on to explain 4 key elements of their design which they believed solved the many challenges of the sloping and irregular site set among prominent civic buildings and, referring to a number of slides, he spoke about the design elements of the Argyll Street frontage, Block A, Block B and Access and Parking and explained in detail the layout of the site and the materials that would be used. He then presented a 3D animation of the scheme showing how it integrated and responded to each aspect of the site.
David Campbell advised that he was a Planning Director with GL Hearn property consultants. He stated that he was a professionally qualified and practising town planner for over 20 years with 10 years’ experience as a local authority planner and 10 years in private practice. He explained that he would consider the proposal against the relevant planning policies as contained in the Council’s adopted Local Plan and advised that his comments would support the findings and conclusions in the Planning Officer’s report and that his comments would address the proposal against the concerns that had been raised by objectors. He stated that the planning history of the site was relevant and advised that the planning permission granted in 1997 for a flatted development in two blocks was broadly equivalent to what was now being proposed by Fyne Homes. He stated that he thought everyone would agree that the principle of Page 5 residential development on the site was accepted and advised that planning policies STRAT DC 1 and HOU 1 established clear support for housing development within the settlement of Dunoon and that they particularly supported redevelopment and environmental improvement of gap and infill sites such as this. He added that the principle of regenerating key sites in Dunoon was also supported by the Local Plan Area for Action Policy 2/1 and the Council’s CHORD initiative. Referring to specific policy considerations he advised that while the site did sit within the Town Centre it was significant to note that it was not in the core shopping area and that this reflected the fact that the application site had never accommodated shops or commercial units and that the site not only stepped back from the main shopping frontages to the south but also represented the point at which retail use ended on this west side of Argyll Street as continued by the Burgh Hall and St John’s Church. He stated that this supported the development not incorporating retail uses at ground floor level. He highlighted that the application site did not fall within a Conservation area but instead fell within a locally designated Special Built Environment Area. He then went onto refer in turn to policies LP ENV 19, LP ENV 13a, LP ENV 14 and LP TRAN6 which were identified and addressed in the Planning Officer’s report and which he considered were the key tests which the application had to meet and he demonstrated and explained how they would be met. He stated that the Council’s new Local Development Plan restated the same requirements as these policies. In conclusion he advised that he hoped he had explained why he was of the opinion that the application should be supported by the Council and for planning permission to be granted.
Janet McAlister concluded the presentation on behalf of the Applicant by covering the final two key factors which they felt made the proposal to develop the St Cuthbert’s site an obvious choice for the Committee. She advised that these factors were the secured funding for the development and the significant housing demand within the area. She confirmed the St Cuthbert’s development proposal had received significant funding support from both the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council. She stated that through the Scottish Government’s Affordable Housing Supply Programme, Fyne Homes had been awarded a Tender Offer of Grant for the sum of £959,871 and that the 17 homes at St Cuthbert’s were included in the Scottish Government’s figures for anticipated properties due off site in September 2015 and would assist the Government in delivering their commitment of increasing the supply of affordable homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. She confirmed that Argyll and Bute Council through their Strategic Housing Fund had awarded Fyne Homes a SHF Grant of £554,000 and a further SHF long term loan of £201,193. The St Cuthbert’s development was also detailed within the Council’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan as a priority project with the 17 units to be delivered by September 2015. She stated that this funding support demonstrated that both bodies recognised the role the St Cuthbert’s development proposals played in meeting the significant demand for affordable housing in Dunoon. She advised that with Fyne Homes levering in private finance to support the shortfall in funding, this project would realise a £2.2 million investment in Dunoon town centre. Referring to slides she illustrated the urgent need for new affordable 1 and 2 bedroom properties in the Dunoon area. She advised that this was not Page 6 just an issue for Fyne Homes and stated that recent updates to the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and the Strategic Housing Investment Plan suggested that demand across Argyll and Bute was higher than originally anticipated when the LHS was first drawn up in 2011. She advised that there were several reasons for this but the two main issues affecting Fyne Homes, their tenants and applicants were the extremely low levels of turnover they experienced and the ongoing impact of welfare reform. She referred to a table which provided details of their housing stock numbers in Dunoon matched against their turnover for the last financial year and which showed that Fyne Homes did not have large numbers of properties in the Dunoon area and although the bulk of these were 1 and 2 bedroom properties their turnover was so low that there was no significant impact on demand at all. She advised that this was brought even more sharply into context when comparing the demand for differing property sizes against turnover. She pointed out that a second table clearly showed that although demand was higher than turnover for all sizes of properties, the biggest pressure on the waiting list was coming from these applicants requiring 1 or 2 bedroom properties with 328 applicants currently requiring 1 bedroom and a further 214 applicants requiring a 2 bedroom property in Dunoon. She asked the Committee to note that 31 Fyne Homes tenants in Dunoon fell within the “Bedroom Tax” criteria and that they were currently under occupying 2 bedroom properties. She stated that these tenants could not move at the moment as they had nowhere for them to go. She stated that the provision of the 12 x 1 bedroom properties detailed in their St Cuthbert’s proposal would go some way to alleviate the pressures of under occupancy and would allow Fyne Homes to make better use of their housing stock. She asked the Committee to note the key factors they felt made the development of their St Cuthbert’s site an essential element in the regeneration of Dunoon town centre and asked that the Committee concur with the Planning Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for this much needed affordable housing development.
SUPPORTERS
Jane MacLeod
Jane MacLeod advised that she was Company Secretary for MacLeod Construction and advised that if this application was successful they would be awarded the contract to build this very welcome development for Dunoon. She stated that their Company currently employed around 200 people throughout Argyll and Bute and over 30 years this has included a local workforce in Dunoon of approximately 30. She referred to these workers from Dunoon travelling out with the area to jobs around Argyll and stated that it was hoped that this development would give them the opportunity of working in their own home town. She advised that construction work would amount to £2.2 million which she stated was a very large investment into the economy of Argyll and Bute and in particular to Dunoon. She referred to news reports that the country was coming out of recession and advised that she wasn’t sure if this was the case yet for Argyll which was experiencing depopulation. She advised that this proposal would grow skills and keep young people in Dunoon. She confirmed that during the 14 months of construction 30 men would be Page 7 employed in a variety of trades. She confirmed that this would include apprentices and stated that she was a passionate supporter of young enterprise and work experience. She advised that it was her ambition to employ the first female joiner on site. She referred to the company working closely with the local schools. She referred to there being considerable support for this proposal from people who lived and worked in Dunoon. She referred to the need for affordable housing, especially 1 and 2 bedroom flats. She pointed out that the site had lain empty for a long time and that there had been various attempts to revitalise it. She confirmed that a lot of work had gone into this application and that a lot of discussion had taken place with the Planners. She pointed out that the application came with the support of the Planning Officer. She stated that this development was a very important investment for Dunoon, not just in the short term for the shops close by and for local bed and breakfast and hotel establishments but also in the long term as 17 houses would mean people moving into them and possibly children going to the schools which would be of considerable benefit to the economy. She advised that the need to retain young people in Argyll was extremely important and commended Members to grant this planning permission.
Stewart Shaw
Stewart Shaw advised that he was from Cowal Building Supplies and stated that there was an opportunity here to create construction work for the Dunoon Town Centre which was important as construction work in Dunoon had been in decline over the last 6 to 7 years. He stated that this housing development may boost the construction industry which would be of massive economic benefit to the town. He advised that he hoped the construction of these 17 new homes would prevent young people from migrating out of the area. He referred to training young people up who then had to leave the area as they had nowhere to live. He stated that once they left the area they did not come back. He advised that he hoped this development would retain some young people in Dunoon and he asked Members to support the application.
OBJECTORS
John McAuslan
John McAuslan advised that he was Chair of the Dunoon Burgh Hall Trust and that he was born and raised in Dunoon. He stated that as Chair of the Trust he was passionate about the successful development of the Dunoon Burgh Hall project. He referred to the history of the hall and confirmed that it was a Grade B listed building designed by Robert Bryden and funded and built by the local people of Dunoon in 1873. He referred to it being the most important civic building in Dunoon until the 1960s when it became redundant. He advised that the single aim of the Trust was to save this building and restore this cultural asset and that it was scheduled to be fully restored by 2016 through public and private funding. He explained that the building has been in partial use since it reopened in May 2009 and with the aid of a series of slides described the restoration works due to commence. He then went on to refer to the proposed development on the former St Cuthbert’s site and stated that this site Page 8 presented major challenges due to the sloping nature of the site and that a significant premium of 10 – 15% would be paid to develop this site. He advised that he believed this site was inappropriate for the sort of housing proposed and that there was a need for this type of housing to be developed economically. He referred to the retaining wall, bin store and centrally located steps and advised that they were inappropriate in his view for this townscape. He acknowledged that there had been no objection from Historic Scotland in respect of the setting of the Grade A listed Church. He referred to Grade B listed buildings being of less importance and stated that Historic Scotland were not interested in respect of the impact on the Burgh Hall and that they were only interested in the Grade A listed building. He referred to the statutory consultation process undertaken and advised that St John’s Church, the Burgh Hall and St Cuthbert’s were a significant grouping of ecclesiastical and civic buildings designed by the same architect and that this grouping remained important despite the loss of St Cuthbert’s and that regard should be given and respect shown to this future development of the site. He advised that Architecture and Design Scotland had offered to review the current planning application through their Design forum but this offer had been declined by the Council. He stated that whilst the impact on the Burgh Hall and the grouping with St John’s was out with Historic Scotland’s remit, The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland had objected to the proposal and that there were also many local objections to the current planning application. In terms of policy he confirmed that Dunoon Burgh Hall Trust did not dispute the need for affordable housing within the local area. He advised that this did not preclude such development taking place elsewhere in the local environment. He stated that on this site a development needed to maximise the number of flats and buildings at a low cost. He advised that there were therefore other sites more appropriate and easier to develop and recommended that other sites be investigated. He referred to the previous planning permission consented in 1997 and stated that this was not relevant as the consent had lapsed in 2002 without being implemented. He pointed out that the 1997 consent was granted under the Cowal Local Plan 1991 which had since been superseded by the Argyll and Bute Local Plan which had a different set to criteria. He also referred to there being significant changes in national planning policy since 1997 and advised that it was his view that this lapsed consent was not relevant to this application and could not be taken as tacit acceptance that a residential use had been confirmed in principle for this site given the significantly changed planning policy position over the last 16 years. He stated that the Officer’s report referring to the previous consent as justification for consent of this proposal was inappropriate. He then went on to explain in detail the provisions of Local Plan Policy ENV 19 and stated that it was their view that the application did not meet the criteria of this policy and gave reasons for this. He advised that it was their view that this application did not fulfil its obligations in terms of achieving a high standard of appropriate design and, in particular, the impact of these proposals on the local setting and listed buildings was unacceptable in general and in specific terms as it related to the impact on Policy with regard to location, layout, services, open spaces, access and design. He stated that Dunoon deserved better and that planning permission should be refused. Page 9
Ann Campbell
Ann Campbell advised that she was employed by the Dunoon Burgh Hall Trust as venue and events manager for the project. She stated that the Trust did not object to the development of social housing for the Dunoon area and that the social and economic benefits and opportunities for Dunoon were recognised. She stated that the objection was development of this proposal on this specific site. She advised that she understood the support for affordable housing and stated that most of the objectors had an interest and knowledge of the site itself. She explained that the Burgh Hall Trust had developed a seriously derelict building and brought it back into use and even although it was still in a less than perfect condition it had built up a following with up to 12,000 people per year attending events held in the hall and that it was expected that this footfall would more than double once the hall was fully restored and that there was a need to make this a sustainable business. She referred to the Trust holding an Entertainment Licence from the Council and confirmed that they had a licence to open to 1 am on the weekends. She pointed out that the building was not in a perfect condition and referred to issues with neighbours in Royal Crescent in respect of noise from events especially involving young people using amplified equipment. She stated that they have done their best to alleviate this problem and tried to restrict the number of dance and music events and that they were mindful of their neighbours. She advised that they were on the cusp of investing £1.7 million to redevelop the building and that sound proofing was a priority. She advised that they were restricted by what they could do due to the historic status of the building. She pointed out that there would be an element of noise from the building during operation of community events and that they wanted this to be the place in town for family celebrations. She advised that to have two blocks of flats right beside the building was a concern as this could be seen as a bad neighbour in reverse situation. She stated that the tenants would have to know that this would be a noisy spot. She referred to people arriving and leaving the building on Argyll Street up to 1 am on regular occasions. She also referred to people congregating outside the building to smoke and chat. She suggested that there were probably more suitable sites in town and that the St Cuthbert’s site was an important civic space and that they wanted to encourage and draw people up and down Argyll Street.
Councillor Bruce Marshall
Councillor Marshall advised that his support for the development and restoration of Dunoon Burgh Hall went back 14 years. He referred to John McAuslan being regarded as a white knight. He stated that the Burgh Hall development was community driven and that it was the community’s desire to have a building that would allow arts and craft events to be taken forward. He referred to the Burgh Hall Trust securing funding to completely renovate the hall which would equate to investment of £1.7 million. He advised that he did not think building homes on Argyll Street was the correct thing to do and advised that he might be wrong, but he believed they would be the only houses at street level in Argyll Street and that this would set a precedent. He stated that he was against Page 10 building houses at street level. He said that if the Burgh Hall had not fallen into such a bad state of repair he believed it would also have had a Grade A listing. He stated that he had concerns about the 54 late letters of support for this development. He referred to an email he had received from someone who had highlighted that all the letters of support seemed to have come in on the same day and that they appeared to be on letter templates with the vast majority with no addresses. He advised that this person had stated that it appeared that the company involved in the construction of the development had given their employees templates to complete and that these were sent in on their behalf. This person had also stated that he believed these letters should be disregarded. Councillor Marshall advised that he believed the development did not comply with planning policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 13a, LP ENV 14, LP ENV 19 and LP BAD2 and if Members were minded to support the objections to this proposal there were plenty of reasons to allow for a competent motion to refuse. He referred to Ann Campbell advising of the Burgh Hall potentially being a bad neighbour and stated that he believed the development could also be a bad neighbour to the Burgh Hall. He referred to the need for housing in the area especially housing for single occupancy. He stated that the site at St Cuthbert’s was not the only site and referred to a site at Sandbank where the old school had been. He stated that this site was vacant, flat and could be easily developed and that the cost to develop here would be far less than at the St Cuthbert’s site. He advised that he was sure negotiations with the Council regarding development of this would be possible. He advised that the land at St Cuthbert’s should be retained as a public space for Dunoon. He pointed out that this area was where the original Dunoon Town Cross was and that this was a very important area in Dunoon. He referred to the stone wall with symbols depicting what used to take place at this area. He advised that this was an important area historically for Dunoon and that it should be retained in this context.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor McNaughton referred to the retaining wall facing Argyll Street and asked what the Applicant’s plan for this wall was. Iain Campbell advised that the existing stone wall boundary would be removed and that there would be new steps back allowing for a wider pavement and a seating area. He confirmed that a new wall would be built with pre cast stone.
Councillor Sandy Taylor referred to the historic heritage of the area and asked Planning to comment on Historic Scotland’s response regarding the external finishing’s of Block B. He also asked what the purpose of Conditions 8 and 9 were. David Eaglesham advised that the remit of Historic Scotland in this case was for them to be consulted in respect of any impact the proposal may have on the Grade A listed St John’s Church and that they have offered no objection and considered that there would not be a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the church. He confirmed that they had questioned the use of the white render on the Block B elevations facing the church and had suggested that alternative external materials be considered. He referred to the grey pattern similar to St John’s Church and the Burgh Hall. He then referred to the objection Page 11 made by The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and advised that they thought the scheme warranted more finesse in detailing to make it harmonise with its surrounding streetscape. He commented that the frontage of Block A was plain compared to the Burgh Hall. He confirmed that conditions 8 and 9 were standard conditions applied to consents in respect of landscaping and external finishes to ensure all the finer details were known and agreed prior to the commencement of construction works.
Councillor Taylor asked if condition 9 would take account of the concerns made about the white render. David advised that white render was what you would expect on Argyll Street for the render of buildings. He stated that Dunoon was not generally a white rendered town and that it was mostly grey but when render was used it tended to be a white pallet.
Councillor Trail advised that he had noted that there was disabled access into Block B and asked if there was any disabled access into Block A. Iain Campbell confirmed that Block B had disabled access with a ramp from Albert Crescent. He stated that access from Argyll Street to Block A had been more challenging and was not fully compliant in terms of disabled access requirements. He advised that they had reached an agreement with Building Control who were not insisting that the development be fully compliant in respect of Block A.
Councillor Trail advised that he had heard of the possibility of the Burgh Hall being a bad neighbour and asked if an element of sound proofing would be used for the two Blocks or was it the case that as they were new buildings they would have sufficient sound proofing. Iain Campbell advised that they would have no control over what young people may do or any noise. He explained the configuration of the blocks which would be a timber framed construction with block work and double glazed window units to current standards. He advised that they had minimised any openings facing other properties and that the buildings would be in excess of 35 – 40 metres from properties.
Councillor McCuish referred to Councillor Marshall’s comments about a loss of amenity. He advised that he had noted that the land had lain vacant for a long time and asked was it not the case that there would be no loss of amenity but a loss of a potential amenity. He also suggested that the design of the proposal would in fact enhance the setting of the Burgh Hall. Councillor Marshall advised that there was nowhere else in this part of Dunoon where people could get off the street and stated that this was a great environmental space. Ann Campbell referred to Councillor McCuish’s comment about the proposal enhancing the Burgh Hall. When asked she agreed with Councillor McCuish’s suggestion that the Hall would not be significantly disadvantaged by the development. John McAuslan commented on their aspirations for a possible community space. He stated that this current proposal was unworkable due to the slopes and also stated that the visual presence of the scheme was unsuitable for the area.
Councillor Blair referred to the lack of disabled access at Block A and expressed his surprise at Building Control’s view on this as he thought all Page 12 new buildings had to be compliant with disabled access requirements and asked the Applicant to comment. Iain Campbell advised that the site had been challenging because of the slopes and shape of the land. He confirmed that Block B had full disabled access with 2 flats on the ground level. He advised that they were trying to achieve the best solution possible for Block A.
Councillor Blair sought and received clarification from David Eaglesham that the window frames would be grey.
Councillor Blair sought and received clarification from Janet McAlister that the cost of upgrading the road and access at Albert Crescent was approximately £42,000 which would be met by the Applicant.
Councillor Freeman referred to the planning report and comments made by objectors about the potential for bad neighbour in reverse issues and asked Planning if they considered the activities of the Burgh Hall to mean they would be a bad neighbour. David Eaglesham referred to it being possible that at certain period of times noise could come from the building and advised of sound mitigating measures proposed as part of the hall renovations in the coming year. He advised that this was a town centre site where you would expect an element of noise.
Councillor Freeman referred to objector comments in the report that a shortage of affordable housing could have no bearing on a planning application and sought comment on this as he thought that surely development of affordable housing was relevant to the application. David Eaglesham advised that development of affordable housing did not override consideration of other relevant policy matters.
Councillor Freeman asked if there was pedestrian access from Block B down to Block A. Iain Campbell confirmed that there was no physical link between the flatted developments and that there has not been access through this site for some time. He referred to a pavement up to Victoria Square leading to the other residential properties.
Councillor Freeman asked if it would be possible to create a pedestrian access between the two developments. Iain Campbell advised that the earlier scheme submitted in December and subsequently withdrawn had access through the site. Following discussion with Planning it was agreed to remove this access in order to make the developments more secure and for privacy issues.
Councillor McCuish referred to the merits of other sites in the area and to the funding received from the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council. He asked if this funding would be lost if the planning application was refused. Janet McAlister advised that this was a possibility and that there was no guarantee it would remain in Dunoon and could go elsewhere in Scotland. She advised that the funding from Argyll and Bute Council would remain in Argyll but not necessarily in Dunoon. When asked she confirmed that so far £200,000 had been spent on the project.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the car park and turning area and Page 13 received clarification that the width from the edge of the parking spaces to the boundary of the site would be 5.5 metres as shown on the plan.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to the bin area next to Block B and received clarification from Iain Campbell that the refuse lorry would reverse down to the bin area and that following discussions with the Council’s Roads and Amenity Services it had been confirmed that this would be acceptable.
Councillor Kinniburgh asked if this accorded with Appendix C (Access and Car Parking Standards) of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan. David Eaglesham advised that it did not meet the standard which was guidance in the Appendix but that Roads had accepted this proposal on this occasion.
Councillor McQueen sought and received agreement that there was a need for more affordable housing in Dunoon. John McAuslan acknowledged that there was a housing need and that he supported the provision of housing in the town. However, he advised that this could not be the only site available for affordable housing and stated that the premium to be paid to develop this site was so great and that the housing proposed was not of a quality appropriate for this setting.
Councillor Freeman sought and received clarification on the parking provision available to other nearby residential properties.
Councillor Kinniburgh referred to policy LP BAD 2 in respect of bad neighbours and asked if this proposal was assessed against this policy and if not, why not. David Eaglesham explained that generally this policy was taken into consideration when proposals related to developments such as factories which used a lot of noisy machinery and for night clubs open 7 nights a week. He advised that up till now the Burgh Hall has provided a lot of cultural type activities and that he did not believe their entertainment licence had been used extensively. He advised that at the present time the Burgh Hall was not considered a bad neighbour.
The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 1.10 pm for lunch.
The Committee reconvened at 1.45 pm.
SUMMING UP
Planning
David Eaglesham advised that he had noted that almost everyone would agree that this was a challenging site. He stated that Members could only determine the merits of the application before them. He referred to the planning history and the similar scheme approved years ago. He advised that Planning felt there was no overriding reason why a residential development at this site could not be considered. He advised that this particular design may not win awards however it was a scheme that they could support. He recommended that planning permission be approved. Page 14
Applicant
Janet McAlister advised that Fyne Homes were an award winning, well respected company providing quality, energy efficient, affordable homes and that they prided themselves as being the landlord of choice in their area. Following extensive discussions and consultation she advised that they had come up with an acceptable design and that the Planning Officer had recommended approval of this development adding that no objections had been received from any of the statutory consultees. She stated that alternative sites were not a material consideration in respect of this application. She confirmed that Block A was 3 stories high and not 6 stories. She advised that the development would act as an end stop to residential development at Royal Crescent. She referred to the upgrade of the road and Albert Crescent and to the parking survey carried out which demonstrated that sufficient capacity was available in respect of Block A from existing car parks and street parking. She referred to the funding in place from the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council which would realise £2.2 million investment which would assist in the regeneration of Dunoon town centre. She referred to the significant demand for housing being demonstrated and advised that the provision of 17 homes would go some way to address this demand. She stated that they felt there was sufficient amenity and public space in the surrounding area and referred to Victoria Gardens. She referred to the principle objection from the Burgh Hall Trust was regarding the site being developed for housing. She advised that Fyne Homes purchased the St Cuthbert’s site in order to provide affordable social housing which was there business as a Registered Social Landlord. She asked the Committee to support the Planning recommendation to grant planning permission for this much needed development.
Supporters
Jane MacLeod
Jane MacLeod referred to the good work undertaken by the Burgh Hall Trust and advised that it was great to hear about the amount of effort, work and support from Dunoon in this respect. She advised that through her involvement with the Licensing Board she was surprised to hear a license holder describe themselves as a bad neighbour and stated that they would have no need to worry about adverse impact on the proposed housing providing all their licence objectives were being met. She stated that this development would result in a very important investment into Argyll. She advised that she disagreed with Planning comments that this design may not win awards and stated that she thought this was an excellent design and thought that it would blend in well with the surrounding streetscape. She commended the design to Members and recommended that planning be consented.
Stewart Shaw
Stewart Shaw advised that he was extremely supportive of the Burgh Hall and stated that they should be commended for everything they have Page 15 done. He referred to Councillor Marshall advising that there were other more suitable sites for housing such as land at Sandbank. He stated that Sandbank was not in Dunoon and that he could not think of any other suitable sites within Dunoon that could support a development of this scale. He referred to cost implications and stated that funding had been secured to meet these costs just as funding had been secured by the Burgh Hall Trust to meet their renovation costs and that this should not be questioned. He urged the Committee to consider supporting this application.
Objectors
John McAuslan
John McAuslan referred to 5 key areas of concern. He stated that Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland had objected to the proposal and that concerns have been raised by Creative Scotland and Architectural Heritage Fund and said that these significant objections and concerns were understandable in respect of this historic built environment. He referred to a significant level of objection from the residents of Dunoon and advised that careful consideration should be given to where the letters of support had come from. He referred to the loss of amenity and the visual presence of the development which according to the Burgh Hall Trust would not be compatible with the surrounding locality. He referred to a 3 metre retaining wall and commented on the development being inaccessible and so discriminatory. He referred to the slope of the site and the design of the buildings. He advised of 10 – 15% higher costs to build on this site and stated that this was low quality, over development. He advised that he had shown the development to have failed the policy test. He stated that the lapsed consent was irrelevant. He advised that for Mr Eaglesham to say the quality of the scheme was just fair and that it would probably not win awards was a terrible admission to make. He stated that Dunoon deserved better.
Ann Campbell
Referred to the potential for the Burgh Hall to be a noisy neighbour and confirmed that they worked within the licensing requirements. She advised that given the nature of the building there was an element of noise emitted from it. She stated that part of their Business Plan included eventually being open 7 days a week.
Councillor Marshall
Councillor Marshall advised that he had heard a lot and was not convinced that this was a good development on this site and that there was strong community resistance to it. He stated that Fyne Homes had an excellent record and advised that he had always supported Fyne Homes. He advised that he was concerned that the contractor for this development was not local to Dunoon. He stated that wheelchair access to the development was not as it should be and that he had never known of a new development in Argyll and Bute not expected to be fully DDA Page 16 compliant. He also expressed his concern about the parking at Block B and the means of access to the bins by the refuse lorry. He referred to another suitable site at Spence Court. He expressed his concern that Argyll and Bute Council was providing funding of £3/4 million which included a loan for a development that required an extra £200,000 - £500,000 to be spent on it because of the typography of the site and stated that this was public money not being well spent. He recommended that planning permission be refused.
The Chair asked all those present to confirm they had received a fair hearing and they all confirmed this to be the case.
Councillor Bruce Marshall referred to the terms of the National Code of Conduct for Councillors which required him to declare a non financial interest and leave the meeting at this point.
DEBATE
Councillor McCuish advised that the planning system operated in the long term public interest and that it did not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another. In distinguishing between public and private interest, the basic question was whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest, not whether owners or occupiers of neighbouring or other existing properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development. He stated that over 400 people have chosen to live in Dunoon. He advised that he admired what the Burgh Hall Trust has done and stated that he did not think this development would have a detrimental impact on the Burgh Hall. He stated that he thought the impact would be neutral and may even enhance it. He advised that he was disappointed to hear of the bodies that had expressed concern to the Burgh Hall Trust and that this could affect their funding. He confirmed that he was confident all the policy tests had been fulfilled and that this had been confirmed by the roads department. He noted that Dunoon Community Council had raised no objection and confirmed that he supported the Planning recommendation to approve this application.
Councillor Freeman advised that it was clear to him that policy LP BAD 2 did not apply in this case. He stated that funding had been allocated to deliver affordable housing at this site and if the application was refused this funding may no longer be available and that there was no guarantee that it would remain in Argyll and Bute. He advised that he was impressed with the design and noted the ridge heights were pretty well in line with neighbouring properties. He advised that the Grade A listed St John’s Church was of no concern as it was far enough removed from the site and therefore there would be no impact on it. He referred to comments about the 1997 approval not being relevant and stated that the history of a site was relevant in the consideration of any application. He referred to comments about Argyll Street all being retail at the lower level and stated that this development was at the end of Argyll Street and that he had no concerns in this respect. Overall he stated that he believed this was a good development for the site and that it would take away an Page 17 eyesore. He confirmed that he supported the recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor MacMillan advised that on observing the site for the first time today he thought it was an environmental disaster. He stated that he saw three gains coming out of this development, an environment gain, a planning gain and a housing gain and that he supported this application.
Councillor Taylor advised that Members had to determine the application before them and not any other possible alternatives. He advised that Planning worked to facilitate development. He referred to discussions that had taken place over a number of years to get to this position. He referred to compromise also being a feature to secure a solution in the context of heritage and setting. He stated that he would like to see this application granted.
Councillor Trail referred to this difficult site and commended the Architect in being able to design a scheme to incorporate 17 units of high density. He stated that high density was essential and key to the economic vibrancy of a town centre. He noted that this development would provide 17 homes within walking distance of the town centre. He confirmed that he supported the recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor McNaughton thanked everyone present for their excellent presentations. He advised that he had sympathy for the objectors and stated that he was very aware of the Burgh Hall being a key cultural asset to the town. He advised that he was also very aware of the good work done by Mr McAuslan and Ann. He stated that he was also very aware of the need for affordable housing and the under occupancy problem and the bedroom tax. He stated that there had been no objection from Historic Scotland. He advised that he would wait to hear what everyone else had to say before making up his mind.
Councillor Blair stated that the 3D animation provided by the Applicants was excellent. He confirmed that he was aware of the work of the Burgh Hall Trust. He referred to the disability access and advised that he could not see why this development should have lower standards than elsewhere and perhaps this could be looked at it again. He referred to comments made about bad neighbours and stated that Fyne Homes residents could also be bad neighbours and that they have been known to not always be well behaved. He commended Ann and her team for the work undertaken at the Burgh Hall and advised that there was the opportunity here to have good neighbours side by side. He advised that it was important not to look at the planning aspects in isolation and that a holistic approach needed to be taken. He referred to there being job opportunities through the development of this site and advised that he supported the application.
Councillor McQueen advised that he supported the Burgh Hall but there was a need for more housing and that bad neighbours came and went.
Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he had listened to everything that had been said today and that there was no doubt that the Dunoon Burgh Hall Page 18 was an asset to the community of Dunoon. He also advised that there was no doubt that there was a lack of housing of this type and that the Committee had to weigh up everything that was before them. He stated that he had no concerns about the design of the development and advised that he felt this was an appropriate development for the site. He acknowledged the good work of the Burgh Hall Trust. He referred to his concerns about the parking and access and expressed disappointment that a Roads officer was not present to answer his questions. However he stated that based on the answers received from those present regarding the width he was quite sure the Planning Officer would take these concerns back to the Roads officer. He confirmed that he supported the planning recommendation and moved a motion to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the supplementary reports. This motion was seconded by Councillor Freeman.
DECISION
The Committee unanimously agreed to grant planning subject to the following conditions and reasons:-
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 4 th March 2014 and the approved drawing reference numbers: A(00)L001 Rev A, A(00)L008, A(00)L004 Rev B, A(00)L003 Rev B, 010, A(00)_A_L001 Rev A, A(00)_B_L001 Rev B, A(00)L002 Rev B, A(00)D01, unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. The development hereby permitted shall only be implemented by a Registered Social Landlord (a body registered under part 3 chapter 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, or any equivalent provision in the event of the revocation and re-enactment thereof, with or without modification) and shall not enure for the benefit of any other person, company or organisation.
Reason: To ensure the provision of affordable housing to the standard required by the development plan in the absence of any other agreed means of securing such provision.
3. The drainage scheme as identified on drawing numbers 1821.01 and 07546-01, including the provision of filter trenches and a storm cell attenuation tank, shall be fully implemented prior to any dwelling being first occupied. The drainage system shall include measures to slow down run-off; methods of treatments and its release into the system, existing and proposed drainage of the site and shall provide a temporary surface water drainage system during construction phases; unless the prior written consent for variation is obtained in writing from the Planning Authority. Page 19
Reason: In order to provide for sustainable development of the site that incorporates the basic principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems identified in ‘Planning Advice Note 61’and to protect existing and proposed development from the effects of potential increased surface water run-off.
4. Prior to first occupancy of the 8 flats within Block B, 4 parking spaces (each 5.0 x 2.5 metres), as shown on approved drawing no. A(00)L004 Rev B, shall be constructed and made available for use and thereafter shall be retained in perpetuity for the parking of vehicles.
Reason: In the interests of providing off-street car parking provision.
5. The vehicular access to be formed onto Albert Crescent shall be a minimum of 5.5 metres wide with a sealed surface for a minimum of the first 5 metres and the gradient shall not exceed 5% for the first 5 metres and the cross fall on the access road and adjacent parking bays shall not exceed 4%.
Reason: In the interests of road safety
6. Visibility splays for the new access onto Albert Crescent shall be 20.0 metres in each direction from a 2.0 metre set-back from the carriageway and shall be maintained clear of all obstructions within these sightlines. These splays shall be cleared of any obstruction to visibility in excess of 1.0m in height before the access point is first brought into use and shall be maintained clear of any boundary wall, fencing or vegetation in excess of 1.0 metre along the boundary of the site abutting Albert Crescent thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and to maintain acceptable sightlines.
7. Prior to the first occupation of any of the flats hereby approved, the geometry of Albert Crescent shall be realigned and formed in consultation with the Area Roads Manager. [This aspect will be covered by Road Construction Consent and Road Opening Permit, refer to Advisory Note 7 below].
Reason: In the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety.
8. Prior to the commencement of any construction works, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall include all landscaping including tree planting, shrub planting, hedges and soft/hard landscaping proposals for the site including all communal areas including details of the management and maintenance regime. The landscaping scheme, as may be approved, shall be fully implemented no later than the first planting and seeding season following the commencement of the development and thereafter shall be maintained for a period of ten years. Any losses of plant species to be included in the landscaping Page 20
scheme, through disease, weather exposure, neglect or damage, shall be replaced with equivalent species within one growing season.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to help integrate the proposal into its surroundings.
9. Prior to the commencement of any construction works, samples of all external finishes and roof coverings shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to help integrate the proposal within its surroundings.
10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) Schedule 1 to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, to any of the flats subject of this permission, any development referred to in Class 4A, of the aforementioned Schedule 1, as summarised below:
Class 4A.—(1) Any improvement or other alteration to the external appearance of a dwelling situated within a building containing one or more flats.
No such development shall be carried out at any time within this Part and these Classes without the express grant of planning permission.
Reason: To protect the sensitivity of the surrounding Special Built Environment Areas and Listed Buildings and to retain the character of the flatted development from unsympathetic alterations and additions normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) Part 1ZA Class 4A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011.
11. No flat within Block B shall be first occupied until the proposed windows on the south elevation of the block as detailed in drawing no. A(00)_B_L001 Rev B have been fitted and installed with obscure glass so as to ensure that there is no visibility from these windows. These windows shall remain fitted with obscure glazing thereafter.
Reason : In order to prevent overlooking of adjacent residential properties at 54 Royal Crescent.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 11 April 2014, supplementary report number 1 dated 22 April 2014 and supplementary report number 2 dated 12 June 2014, submitted)
Page 21 Agenda Item 3b
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 18 JUNE 2014
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor George Freeman Councillor James McQueen Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Richard Trail
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Richard Kerr, Major Applications Team Leader – Planning Peter Bain, Area Team Leader – Planning Allan Bain, Harbro - Applicant Graham Taylor, G Taylor Associates, on behalf of Applicant Kat Whyte, Turley Planning Consultants, on behalf of Applicant Catriona Crawford, Harbro – Applicant Malcolm Sinclair, Lochgilphead Phoenix Project Jane MacLeod, Objector Graeme Laing, GL Hearn , on behalf of MacLeod Construction, Objector Alison Hay, Objector
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were intimated by Councillor Mary-Jean Devon.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Alistair MacDougall declared an non financial interest as he had just established that he was related to one of the Applicants. He left the meeting at this point and took no part in the hearing.
3. HARBRO LIMITED: ERECTION OF A NEW HARBRO COUNTRY STORE (SUI GENERIS, MIXED USE OF DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATING 200SQM OF CLASS 1 RETAIL AND 300 SQM CLASS 6 STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION WITH 60SQM OF OFFICE AND STAFF WELFARE FACILITIES); WORKS TO THE CLOCK LODGE, FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A83 (T) AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE/WOODLAND WORKS: LAND ADJACENT TO THE CLOCK LODGE, LOCHGILPHEAD (REF: 13/02855/PP) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and asked the Head of Governance and Law to identify those who wished to speak.
Page 22
PLANNING
Peter Bain presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. He advised that planning permission was being sought for the erection of a New Harbro Country Store which in practice is a sui generis, mixed use development comprising some 200sqm of retail floor space, 300sqm of storage and distribution, and a further 60sqm of office and staff welfare facilities. The proposal also includes for works to the Clock Lodge and management of its woodland setting, and the formation of a new vehicular access to the site. He advised that the applicant is Harbro Limited who are stated in the application details as being one of Scotland’s leading animal nutrition manufacturing companies and advised that the proposed development is intended as a direct replacement for Harbro’s existing site within the Kilmory Industrial Estate. He stated that the application is for local scale development but has been subject to extensive third party representation with a neutral observation from Councillor Philand as Local Member. He advised that forty parties had raised an objection and a further six had expressed their support. In addition a one hundred and twenty one name petition which sets out support for both Harbro and Lochgilphead Phoenix Projects plans for the Clock Lodge has also been received subsequent to the April Planning Protective Services and Licensing Committee meeting.
Peter Bain reported that in relation to the adopted Local Plan, the application site is located within the Lochgilphead Settlement Area, and more specifically within ‘Mixed Use’ Allocation MU-AL 12/1 which is supportive in principle of community facility, tourism and recreational developments. The inclusion of retail and storage/distribution elements would represent a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of MU-AL 12/1. He advised that within the draft Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan the site remains within the settlement area for Lochgilphead, however the emergent plan proposes to delete allocation MU-AL 12/1 and replace this with Potential Development Area designation PDA 3013 which whilst continuing to support the use of the site for community facilities, tourism and recreation would also be supportive of the concept of enabling development if this was required to realise the development potential of the Clock Lodge site. This provision of the emergent Local Development Plan has not been contested and as such may be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of the current application as the most recent expression of Council policy.
He stated that the application relates to a 1.3 hectare site which includes the category B listed Clock Lodge building and its immediate deciduous woodland setting which lies on the southern approach to Lochgilphead. The application site overlooks the A83 and Loch Gilp to the West, and is bounded to the South by the Lochgilphead Joint Campus and the East by a public footpath and a relatively modern housing development at Ross Crescent. The proposed Harbro Country Store would be located some fifty metres to the south of the Clock Lodge and set eleven metres back from the A83 within a clearing to be created in the existing woodland. The proposal includes for the existing access onto the A83 to be closed off with a new access formed ten metres or so to the south of the Clock Lodge which will drive straight to the rear of the site before swinging Page 23 round to the south to provide access to both a customer car park and a service area for the new development. The proposed new access arrangements are also suitable to serve the future use of the Clock Lodge building and could readily facilitate a new car park to the rear of the building.
He advised that the proposal details a development which will comprise two main built elements with a link between. The larger building will be set to the rear of the site and will have an external footprint of 300sqm this building will be utilised for storage and will not be accessible to the general public. The smaller building is set out at 90 degrees and will have an external footprint of just under 200sqm (11.5m x 17m) and will be utilised to provide retail floor space. The two buildings will be connected by a link structure which will contain a glazed corridor and staff office and welfare facilities.
Peter Bain reported that the building proportions have been designed having regard to the adjacent Clock Lodge with the intention that they appear to be subsidiary to the historic building. The storage area will have a ridge height of 9m, the retail area will have a lower ridge height of 7.2m, both buildings will be lit by a ridge mounted roof light, openings within the storage area are restricted to loading doors with canopies and the retail area will incorporate a store front window and glazed canopy on its north facing elevation. Externally, the buildings will be finished in a recessive translucent colour stained, horizontally boarded timber and shall have a standing seam roof covering of grey pre-patinated zinc. He advised that the proposals also include for extensive felling and restructuring of the existing woodland setting of the Clock Lodge. He stated that Members will be aware from their site inspection earlier today that whilst part of the woodland is included in the Ancient Woodland Inventory this particular woodland is in poor health, tree cover is evidently sparse in places, much of the site is water logged, and remaining areas infested with invasive species including rhododendron and wild raspberry.
Peter Bain explained that the proposals would require the removal of some 60 identified trees although only three of these are located on the A83 road frontage, their removal cannot be avoided as they occupy space required for the new access layout and visibility splays. The submissions also detail that the site will be subject to extensive re-stocking to improve the structure of the woodland, in particular, this will ensure the retention of roadside tree cover, provision of a screen between the Clock Lodge and the new development, and strengthening of the body of woodland to be retained in the southern portion of the site.
He outlined that water shall be by connection to the public water main. The submitted details suggest that foul drainage would be to a new septic tank however this would be contrary to SEPA’s recommendations and policy LP SERV 1 but can be negated by a suitably worded planning condition requiring connection of the development to the public sewer. Surface water drainage would be to a SUDS compliant scheme within the application site boundary.
He informed the Committed that the details accompanying the application Page 24 contend that the proposed new development should be considered as an enabling development which secures the retention of the Category B Listed Clock Lodge and enhances the prospect that the historic building will be able to find a viable new use. Peter Bain advised that the Clock Lodge was originally built as the western point of access to the Kilmory Estate, located at the termination of a causeway which crossed Loch Gilp and at one point sat in its own woodland setting in isolation from other built development associated with Lochgilphead. In more recent times the wider setting of the Clock Lodge has been undermined by the development of the Lochgilphead Joint Campus and residential development of Ross Crescent and Kilmory Road beyond. He reported that the Clock Lodge and its woodland setting have been deteriorating for a substantial period of time in the absence of any viable proposal for the reuse of the building. In April 2012, the Council’s Mid Argyll Kintyre and the Isles Area Committee agreed to refrain from marketing the property in the short-term to allow for a local community group, the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project to undertake a feasibility study on the re-development of the building. He reported that the Phoenix Project has, with the assistance of the Strathclyde Buildings Preservation Trust, prepared an Options Appraisal which identifies that the building has a nil market value and a conservation deficit of approximately £280,000. He reported that the applicant has advised that they are seeking to take forward the current proposal in partnership with the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project. He advised that it is understood that in February 2014, the Mid Argyll Kintyre and the Isles Area Committee approved a mechanism for the transfer in the ownership of the building and woodland from the Council to the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project for a nominal sum and conditions for an onward sale to Harbro. This mechanism also provides for a reciprocal long-term lease to be granted by Harbro to the Phoenix Project for the Clock Lodge Building, and requires Harbro to undertake an agreed schedule of repair works to make the building wind and water tight. He stated the proposed repair works to the Clock Lodge do not require planning permission but have been the subject of a separate application for listed building consent. Historic Scotland provided confirmation last week that they had no objections to listed building consent being granted and this permission has been subsequently issued as a delegated decision. Peter Bain explained that the approved works include for the substantial re-roofing of the building in slate, removal and replacement of damaged rafters, repair and replacement of cowals, replacement of lead work, reduction in chimney heights, a variety of stonework repairs and repair of rainwater goods. Delivery of these initial works would return the building to a wind and watertight condition and have been supported by the Council’s Conservation Officer. The initial stage one works have been estimated by the applicant to cost £226,000 with further costs associated with the formation of a new access and restructuring of the woodland area suggesting that Harbro would initially be investing somewhere in the region of £300,000 in the fabric of the Clock Lodge, its infrastructure and its setting. The provisions of proposed condition 4 appended to report of handling would require repair works to be implemented in advance of any new development and would also require further external refurbishment works identified as Stage 3B in the submission in the event that the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project are unable to realise their own aspirations within a five year time period. He advised the Committee that the Page 25
Council’s Conservation Officer has examined the proposals and has confirmed that not only is she satisfied that the works to the Clock Lodge are appropriate but she is also considers the proposed new development to be of appropriate design quality and as such to have an acceptable impact upon the setting of the building. Furthermore, the proposals to provide a tree screen between the Clock Lodge and new development, and re-structuring of its woodland setting is considered to be a significant positive improvement. He acknowledged that the proposed new development will have some impact upon the setting of the historic environment. In this instance it is considered that the significant benefits of this intervention would outweigh any negative aspects and as such the proposal is considered to be consistent with STRAT DC 9 and LP ENV 13a.
Peter Bain reported that the current application seeks planning permission for a mixture of land uses and as such requires to be viewed as a sui generis, or unique, land use. The proposal however requires to be assessed against all Local Plan policies which are relevant to the intended land uses. He advised that in assessing this proposal Officers have taken account of the fact that Harbro are already present and trading from an out of town location within the Kilmory Industrial Estate and that the majority of retail floor space is intended to be used for the sale of bulky specialist and agriculture related products. He stated that in their submissions Harbro state that they have been trading from Kilmory Industrial Estate since 2001 from an 114sqm unit with a 20sqm mezzanine. A curtain sided trailer within the yard is utilised to provide additional storage facilities. The existing property is cramped and provides insufficient space to carry required stock levels with resultant additional transportation costs; the site also brings customers and delivery vehicles directly into conflict, overflow parking on access roads within the immediate locality also compromises access to the site. He advised that Harbro have also expressed the view that they would prefer to trade from a site which is easier for customers to locate and visually more appealing to them than their current premises and its surrounds.
Peter Bain reported that the retail element of the proposed development is considered to be ‘medium scale’ retail development in the context of the current Local Plan but would be downgraded to ‘small scale’ if assessed against the emergent Local Development Plan. The provisions of policy LP RET 1 sets out a general presumption in favour of up to and including large scale retail development within the Lochgilphead settlement area subject to the implementation of a sequential approach based upon a decreasing preference for new development stepping out from defined town centres. Peter Bain advised that the current application is accompanied by a sequential assessment which demonstrates that Harbro have investigated and discounted a variety of sites within the Lochgilphead core shopping area and defined town centre. These sites include the SPAR premises within the core shopping area, and the Victoria Hotel and Co-op sites within the wider town centre. Whilst available, neither the SPAR nor Victoria Hotel offered sufficient space to accommodate the proposed development, the Co-op site was considered to be sufficient in area but is currently unavailable. He reported that he Council’s Development Policy Officers have advised that they are satisfied Page 26 that there are no suitable town centre or edge of centre sites which are available or could become available within a reasonable period of time. He advised that the provisions of policy LP RET 1 also state that new development will not be supported where it is considered likely to have a significant detrimental impact upon either the vitality or viability of existing town centres. The current application is accompanied by a Town Centre Health Check which would suggest that the Lochgilphead Town Centre, based upon its mix of retailers, low vacancy rates and pedestrian footfall is reasonably healthy. As a relocation of an existing trade offering the proposed development is intended primarily to provide Harbro additional floor space for the storage and display of bulky goods which do not directly compete with the current town centre offering. He stated that third party representations have expressed concern that Harbro may impact upon existing independent retailers in the town centre no evidence to support such claims have been forthcoming. He reported that when considering the proposal Officers have had detailed discussion with Harbro to better understand their existing operation and the stated requirement for a 200sqm retail area in order to ascertain firstly whether it would be appropriate to grant planning permission without a detailed retail impact assessment being undertaken, and secondly, to establish whether it would be possible to secure sufficient control over the retail offering within the development to sufficiently protect the interests of Lochgilphead town centre.
Peter Bain explained that a breakdown of Harbro’s intended offering is set out in the report of handling which confirms that Harbro intend to utilise 77.5% of the retail floor space for display and sale of livestock feeds and supplements, animal health products, equine feeds, forages and supplements, bulk bags of dog food, bulk bags of bird seed, farm equipment and hardware and only 12.5% of the retail offering is intended for the sale of clothing and footwear which is targeted at agricultural, horticultural or equestrian pursuits. The remaining 10% would be intended for the sale of ancillary products. He advised that with the majority of retail floor space being utilised to sell bulky specialist agriculture related products only 45sqm of the proposed development would be available to sell products which might offer a degree of competition to the Lochgilphead Town Centre, and even this would be restricted to a limited range of clothing and footwear, and products considered ancillary to agricultural, horticultural and equestrian pursuits. He stated that the Council’s Development Policy Officers have confirmed that a retail impact assessment to establish the effect of such a small amount of floor space on Lochgilphead Town Centre shops as a whole will not provide any useful assessment of impact and as such is considered unnecessary. He reported that Officers are also of the view that the retail offering of the proposed development could be sufficiently restricted by planning condition to properly define the sui generis nature of the intended use and to protect the Lochgilphead Town Centre from harm arising from the retail activity at this out of centre location. These provisions are set out in the proposed conditions 2, 3 and 21 which are appended to the report of handling. He advised that the proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of policy LP RET 1.
Page 27
Peter Bain advised the Committee that the storage and distribution element of the proposed development is considered to be ‘medium scale’ business and industry development within the context of adopted Local Plan and upcoming Local Development Plan. The provisions of policy LP BUS 1 are supportive of up to an including large scale business and industry development within the Lochgilphead settlement area subject to appropriate infrastructure provision and that the development respects its landscape and townscape setting. Policy LP BUS 1 also requires compliance with Schedule B2 of the Local Plan which sets out that the preferred location for all scales of business and industry development is within business and industry allocations and established business and industry areas.
Peter Bain reported that the application is accompanied by a site selection process which gives consideration to a range of sites in the Lochgilphead settlement area and discounts these on the basis of suitability or availability. He stated these sites include the Council Depot on Bishopton Road which is unavailable, sites at Baddens and the existing Kilmory Industrial Estate which are unsuitable either as a result of policy designation or their ability to suitably accommodate the proposed development, and new areas allocated for Business and Industry Development within the proposed Local Development Plan which are unable to be taken forward at the present in the absence of a master plan for the site. He advised that the Council’s Development Policy Officers have confirmed that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that there are no sites which are both suitable and available within the established business and industry locations identified in both the adopted and emergent Development Plans. He reported that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have not raised any objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of restrictions upon opening hours, controlling noise from external plant, and external lighting to protect the amenity of residential development at Ross Crescent. The proposal is accordingly considered to be consistent with the provisions of policy LP BUS 1.
Peter Bain advised the Committee that the development is not considered to have any unacceptable adverse consequences for the amenity of existing residential property, road safety, infrastructure provision, the historic or natural environments and as such is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan in these respects. He advised that the proposal is considered to be consistent with the general settlement strategy policies, including LP RET 1 and LP BUS 1 which are set out in the adopted Local Plan and expressed again within the emergent proposed Local Development Plan. He reported that the inclusion of retail and storage and distribution development is considered to be a departure to the provisions of Mixed Use Allocation MU-AL 12/1 although he advised the members of the Committee that it would be appropriate to afford greater material weighting to the provisions of PDA 3013 in the emergent Local Development Plan which would support the concept of enabling development. He stated that the proposed new development is integrally linked to the delivery of much needed repair and maintenance work to restore the Clock Lodge to a wind and water tight Page 28 condition which will increase the viability of the building as a potential community development to be taken forward by the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project. The Council’s Conservation Officer is content that the massing of the new buildings in relation to the Clock Lodge and that these will not challenge the prominence of this important, gateway building, and that with the proposed provision of a tree screen between the existing and proposed new buildings that any negative impact upon the setting of the Clock Lodge will be sufficiently outweighed by the positive elements of the development.
The application is accordingly commended to Members with a recommendation that planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in Section P of the report of handling and subject to the conditions set out on in the report pack.
APPLICANT
Allan Bain
Allan Bain, introduced himself to the Committee as the commercial director of Harbro, and told the Committee that Harbro trades throughout the UK satisifiying the needs of farmers, pet owners and horse owners. He advised that they sell specialist feeds with an aim to feed all animals to the best of our ability. He advised the Committee that in their current premises they sell bulk animal feed, medicines and sundries for the animal and their owner. Mr Bain reported that 95% of the customers are account based and only 5% of customers are cash paying members of the public. Mr Bain explained to the Committee that Harbro had been operating in its existing premises since 2001 and since then the business has grown and expanded without affecting any local shops or the environment.
Mr Bain advised that although some of the products that are sold by Harbro, such as jackets and boots, are available in other local shops, this is a very small proportion of their overall stock and Harbro have many ranges that are not available within other shops in the area. Mr Bain reported that due to the lack of space at the current Harbro premises it is no longer safe for both customers and staff, and it is important to Harbro to this in order to make the premises feel safe. Mr Bain advised that Harbro had set out to develop all of the premises within Scotland to allow them to be safe and also to provide the opportunity for them to develop. He advised that the Lochgilphead store was the only one in Scotland that was still to be developed and this is due to the lack of potential sites suitable for their desired development. He advised that they had been looking for a site for 5 years.
Mr Bain highlighted that the Clock Lodge that exists within this site and this therefore makes the site different from others in Scotland as it is a greater investment for Harbro. Mr Bain highlighted that Harbro are specialists in animal food and not builders. Mr Bain emphasised how important it was for Harbro to commit to the Clock Lodge and advised that there plan was always to identify a partner to work with them to develop Page 29 the clock lodge so that it does not end up a ruin. Mr Bain reported that they found Lochgilphead Phoenix project.
Mr Bain advised that once a potential development partner had been developed, Harbro hired Graham Taylor from G Taylor associates to take the plans forward. Mr Bain advised that before submitting their proposals, Mr Taylor, on behalf of Harbro, set up meetings with several different organisations including, Scottish Natural Heritage, Strathclyde Building Trust and held a pre application meeting with planning to ensure the application met the needs of everyone concerned.
Mr Bain advised that Harbro felt that they had to design their proposals for their new premises carefully to ensure that it did not alter the character of the landscape and did not have any adverse impacts on the Clock Lodge. Mr Bain highlighted that the existing school and housing development, along with the poor condition that the existing woodland is in has visually affected the site. Mr Bain descried to the Committee the visual impacts of the new development to the lodge. He advised that although when you are looking onto the Clock Lodge you will be able to see the development, he advised that from inside the clock lodge you will not be able to see the site. Mr Bain emphasized the need to protect the Clock Lodge.
Graham Taylor
Graham Taylor, from G Taylor associated introduced himself to the Committee and advised that he was representing the Applicant. Mr Taylor advised the Committee that he feels that it is important for new buildings to be sympathetic to the current surroundings of the site and he feels that this is what has been achieved with Harbro’s designs. Mr Taylor told the Committee that he felt that the building had to akin to its setting but not affect its character, a semi industrial function however remaining a building that is suited to the setting. Mr Taylor showed the members of the Committee a scale model of the Clock Lodge. Mr Taylor went onto describe the footprint of the proposed site to the Committee. He advised that the 2 buildings proposed by Harbro will be the same height of the Clock Lodge and will be linked by a glazed corridor. He advised that the design of the building will be on the main axes exactly like how the clock lodge is. Mr Taylor advised that unlike industrial buildings, these proposed buildings will have the same proportions of that of the Clock Lodge. It plays homage to and respects the Clock Lodge. It uses simple materials, like those used on the Clock Lodge. The materials used will be modern however they will still fit in.
Mr Taylor reported that the scope of works document sets out the planned works to be done to the Clock Lodge. He advised that all works would be supervised by the Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust and a Conservation Officer from Argyll and Bute Council. Mr Taylor advised that the Clock Lodge will be made water and wind tight before any works commence on Harbro’s building.
Kat Whyte
Kat Whyte introduced herself to the Committee advised that she would be Page 30 there to help address the objections that have been submitted with regard to retail concerns.
She advised that Harbro has a different target market to any of the shops in Lochgilphead Town Centre, and they have successfully co-existed for a number of years. She also advised that if they were to be successful with their application, as soon as the new premises is open the old one would close. She advised that a retail impact assessment was not carried out as a retail impact assessment is not intended for small scale development. This development is only 1/12 in size of what national guidelines advise. She also advised that a retail impact assessment is very generic and does not break down into groups of products that would be sold by Harbro. National policy states that retail impact assessments should not be carried out by small businesses, retail impact assessment also only take account of household spending and not local businesses, and to the extent of their knowledge this information is not currently available.
Kat Whyte reported to the Committee that although qualitative research has not been undertaken considerable consideration has been given when deciding on the location of this site. She advised that the location was not intended to divert people away from the town centre. The Town centre has a vast range of amenities and services which this site will not, this site is aimed at its existing customers. She advised that many of Harbro’s existing customers will go to Harbro first then go into the town centre to do their shopping and that if this application was successful it could increase the number of visitors from rural locations, specifically farmers, and as they are already in Lochgilphead they will stop in the town and do their shopping. She stated that Harbro has co-existed with the town centre for many years and she does not believe that a change in location will change this. She added that the conditions that have been set out by the planning department ensure that the developed site cannot be changed into a retail development which could affect the town centre in the future.
Catriona Crawford
Catriona Crawford, manager of the current Harbro site in Lochgilphead , introduced herself to the Committee and advised that the customers they get on a daily basis are mainly agricultural based, such as farmers, game keepers and horse owners. She advised that they travel to the shop as they can get everything they need under the one roof. She advised that the staff within the current store are qualified to discuss animal’s needs and can advise customers on the correct products to buy. She explained how horse owners are able to buy feeds for their horse, as well as gloves they may require for an upcoming show. She reported that she feels that Harbro work well with the other shops located within the town centre and always recommends to customers places to buy things within the town that Harbro do not stock.
Malcolm Sinclair
Malcolm Sinclair advised the Committee that he was the Chair of the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project. He stated that investment from Harbro into Page 31 the Clock Lodge is good for the Clock Lodge as it makes the building more attractive to non heritage funders and reduces the need to fundraise. He advised the Committee that no one else is interested in the Clock Lodge and it represents a major step in regenerating Lochgilphead. He reported that Harbro’s investment makes future investment less of a risk and more attractive as the building is secure and simply needs refurbishment compared to the unsecure state that it is currently in.
He reported that he is committed to Lochgilphead and the team have met all of the Councils demands. Mr Sinclair reported that he felt this application will save the clock lodge and provide further employment for the area and provide work for local businesses whilst it is getting renovated.
He advised that Harbro currently have 3 staff and it is proposed that is increased to 6 over the next 5 years. He reported that the proposal meets planning policy and is good for Lochgilphead.
OBJECTORS
Jane MacLeod
Jane MacLeod introduced herself to the Committee and advised that she was representing MacLeod Construction. Mrs MacLeod stated that she would like to make it clear to the Committee that MacLeod Construction has no issues with Harbro and supports their aspirations to serve Argyll. She advised that MacLeod Construction has a problem with the departure from the local plan and the justification that there are no other sites available.
She advised that Kilmory Industrial Estate had been developed in 1979. She advised that MacLeod construction had since bought the Industrial Estate and has plans to expand the industrial estate. She advised that MacLeod Construction owned Kilmory Key Croft and were in discussions with the Council to extend the Estate into the adjoining ground. She advised that MacLeod Construction had already gained planning permission to gain vehicular access to the proposed development. She stated that she had brought along copies of the master plan which details out the expansion plans. She advised that the reason for the delay in submitting the master plan was due to advice from Council Officers who were working with MacLeod Construction. Jane MacLeod advised that they had been asked to delay lodging their master plan until Argyll and Bute Council had decided what they want to do in relation to their depots. She stated that if this application is approved it will go against the Local Development Plan how and if this happens how can Argyll and Bute Council expect the public to have confidence in the Local Development Plan.
Mrs MacLeod advised that MacLeod’s Construction is a long standing established company that employees 200 people in Argyll and Bute and takes on around 200 apprentices. Mrs MacLeod advised that MacLeod Construction has good connections with Lochgilphead High Schools Young Enterprise and fully supports Argyll and Bute Council in helping Page 32 sustain population and wants to see the area develop. She reported that MacLeod Construction feel the area benefits from businesses like Harbro however feels that confidence of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan will be lost if this application is approved against the Local Development Plan.
Mrs MacLeod reported that they have major concerns with regard to the Clock Lodge. She advised that once it is in the hands of others, Argyll and Bute Council will no longer have any control over what happens to it. Jane MacLeod stated that the Applicants only have to do water and wind tight repairs. She advised that MacLeod Construction had hired a Timer Specialist to do an appraisal of the Clock Lodge. The Timber Specialist advised that 80% of the existing timber needs to be replaced and it needs a new roof. She stated that MacLeod Construction feel that the application should be refused because there is no certainty that work will be done to the Clock Lodge, also there is concern as to what impact the development will have on the Lochgilphead Town Centre and finally as it is a departure of the Local Development Plan.
Graham Laing
Graham Laing introduced himself to the Committee and advised that he was also representing MacLeod Construction. He advised the members of the Committee that the master plan which Jane MacLeod was referring to has been submitted as part of a live planning application. Mr Laing stated that Jane MacLeod had made clear the main points of MacLeod Construction concerns, and Mr Laing reiterated to the Committee that MacLeod Construction was fully supportive of Harbro’s expansion plans and want to see the Clock Lodge restored.
He stated that he could see that a lot of time and effort had been put into the design of the Clock Lodge however MacLeod Construction feel that there are two key issues with the proposal. Firstly the issue is that the site is going to be used for business, and this is a conflict with the adopted Local Development Plan. The Local Development Plan states that any businesses are to be placed within Kilmory Industrial Estate, where there is room for this proposed development.
Graham Laing asked the Committee to consider a plan of Lochgilphead, specifically of the proposed site and Kilmory Industrial Estate. The Head of Governance and Law asked the Chair of the Committee if they would be willing to accept this late submission. The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed to accept this late submission and the plan was passed around the members of the Committee. He explained that MacLeod Construction had offered Harbro two alternative sites within Kilmory Industrial Estate. He advised that MacLeod Construction had offered Harbro the opportunity to expand their current premises into adjoining sites however he noted that their reasons for dismissing this site were valid. He reported that they had been offered Site 21 in the proposed Kilmory Industrial Estate Extension. He advised that Harbro had stated that it was situated off the main road into the Industrial Estate and would prove difficult for their customers to find. Graham Laing informed the Committee that he felt that this was not a viable reason to discount the Page 33 site as the site would sit on the A83 which would allow customers to see the store from the main road going into Lochgilphead. He stated that Site 21 had also been discounted as there was a requirement by MacLeod Construction to submit a master plan. Jane MacLeod has already explained the reasons why there was a delay and there is now a master plan has been submitted, therefore this is no longer a valid reason to discount this alternative site.
Graham Laing advised that his clients believe that it is not a minor departure from the Local Development Plan, as there is a massive amount of work required on the site. He also reported that there was a concern that once Harbro have made the Clock Lodge wind and water tight there will be an uncertainty over the building as the Lochgilphead Phoenix project have no funding in place and no experience of undertaking any similar projects. He stated that MacLeod Construction were concerned as to what would happen to the Clock Lodge in ten years’ time if funding had not been secured and consequently it had not been developed. He explained that MacLeod Construction does not feel that neighbourhood development is enough to constitute setting aside the Local Development Plan.
He reported that MacLeod Construction feel that planning permission should not be granted however if their application is successful a robust set of planning conditions must be set to ensure that Harbro fully restore the Clock Lodge.
Alison Hay
Alison Hay introduced herself to the Committee and advised that she was representing the views of Mid Argyll Chamber of Commerce. She advised that as Graham Laing and Jane MacLeod had already stated, the Chamber of Commerce support Harbro’s expansion plans and are keen to see them succeed in the area. She reported that they believe that the site for this application is too close to the Town Centre and it goes against the Local Development Plan and this should not be ignored just because the proposal helps to restore the Clock Lodge.
Alison Hay advised that the Chamber of Commerce feel that Harbro should expand however they should do so away from the Town Centre, as the Town Centre is currently in a fragile state and this development may put added pressure onto Town Centre.
She asked Peter Bain if he would be able to show a slide from his presentation that showed an area of the current Harbro shop. She advised that a ten percent increase on floor space is a large increase. Alison Hay stated that the Chamber of Commerce felt that an industrial complex on the approach to Lochgilphead will have a major impact on the town and have a serious detrimental effect on the business that are trading within the town centre.
Alison Hay referred the Committee to Kilmory Home Farm, and explained that for several years there were a number of appraisal plans and applications for funding and nothing still there was done to the building. Page 34
She stated that the Mid Argyll Chamber of Commerce are scared that the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project has not yet achieved anything and that there is no guarantee that they will be able to develop the Clock Lodge and there is a risk that the Clock Lodge will end up like Kilmory Home Farm in a worse state than it ever was. She reiterated that the Mid Argyll Chamber of Commerce feel that there is a concern that there is no guarantee that the Clock Lodge will be developed into a meaningful use. She advised that they believe the location is wrong and they should be seeking a location that benefits the whole community and if this application is approved the community will have faith in Argyll and Bute Council for sticking to the adopted Local Development Plan.
The Head of Governance and Law asked the Committee to consider whether they felt it was appropriate to discuss the master plan at this meeting as it is a submission in respect of another planning application.
The Chair advised that he felt the master plan was not appropriate for this meeting and asked the members of the Committee for their opinion.
Councillor Freeman advised that he felt the Committee did not require to see the master plan to determine this application.
Councillor McCuish questioned the relevance of the master plan to the meeting. The Head of Governance and Law advised that the master plan seeks to confirm that there are other sites available in the Kilmory Industrial Estate Extension.
Councillor MacIntyre queried as to why this master plan was submitted today and not before. The Head of Governance and Law advised a master plan was not required for this application however as it assists their argument the objectors are entitled to ask the Committee to consider it. The Head of Governance and Law advised that the Committee only need to note that a master plan exists which therefore means that an alternative site for Harbro’s development may be more likely to be available at a later date.
Councillor Freeman inquired if there was a need for a master plan to be submitted. The Head of Governance and Law stated that this application does not require a master plan however the master plan helps support the objectors submission.
Councillor McCuish queried if a justification of an alternative site could be contained in the master plan. The Head of Governance and Law advised that there could be, it could prove that there is alternative sites available, weakening the justification for minor departure from the adopted Local Development Plan.
The Committee decided not to consider the detail of the master plan. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor McCuish asked the Planners why the Clock Lodge was included in the application. Peter Bain advised that the Clock Lodge has been included in the application as Harbro have seen it as an opportunity. Page 35
He advised that before Harbro had put forward interest in the site, Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust and Lochgilphead Phoenix project had expressed an interest in the site. Harbro found this site when searching for a number of sites for expansion and this presented an opportunity for Harbro to work alongside Lochgilphead Phoenix Project and the Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust.
Councillor McCuish asked the Applicant if there were to have been a different application with a different site would they still consider supporting the Clock Lodge. Mr Taylor advised that Harbro would not support the Clock Lodge if it the application was for a different site.
Councillor McCuish sought and received clarification from the Applicant as to how the lease of the Clock Lodge would operate and queried what would happen if Lochgilphead Phoenix Project decided they no longer wanted to take on the project. Mr Taylor advised that one of planning’s conditions is that after five years, if no development has been made to the Clock Lodge, Harbro are required to carry out other external repairs to the building such as replacing the windows. If after five years, the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project fails to get funding, it will be maintained by Harbro. Mr Taylor stated that Harbro will be informed of the work that Lochgilphead Phoenix Project is undertaking and could potentially look into alternative uses for the Clock Lodge. Mr Taylor advised that Harbro are looking to work alongside Lochgilphead Phoenix Project.
Councillor McNaughton asked planning if there were any restrictions on the use of the Clock Lodge. The Planners confirmed that currently the building has no use and therefore planning permission would need to be sought for any use.
Councillor Colville sought and received clarification on what products are currently on display in the retail section of the current store.
Councillor Colville sought clarification as to whether the new store would double the amount of existing floor space and stated if that is the case he would be surprised if a small area would affect Lochgilphead Town Centre. The Planner’s confirmed that it was correct that the new site would double the amount of retail space that Harbro currently have.
Councillor Freeman sought and received clarification from the Planners as to why the proposed development does not require a master plan.
Councillor Freeman questioned whether any further development on that land would require a master plan. Peter Bain stated that if this proposal is approved then given the need to retain woodland it was unlikely that there would be any residual capacity for further development within the PDA.
Councillor McCuish referred to Harbro being responsible to do the external repairs to the building after five years if the Phoenix Project has not been able to secure funding and questioned why they are waiting five years before carrying out this work. Peter Bain advised that the five year timescale had been given to planning by the Applicant as they want to Page 36 allow Lochgilphead Phoenix Project time to develop the Clock Lodge into their own project. It also gives an opportunity to review what would be the best use of the Clock Lodge.
Councillor McCuish questioned if there would be no further work done on the Clock Lodge by Harbro after it has been made wind and water tight, until the five years have passed unless funding is secured by the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project. Peter Bain advised that Harbro would be required to keep the Clock Lodge wind and water tight with minor repairs.
Councillor McCuish asked the applicant to clarify why they have stated that in five years’ time they will do further work to the Clock Lodge opposed to carrying out the work now. Mr Taylor advised that the Applicant would like to provide the opportunity to Lochgilphead Phoenix Project to develop the Clock Lodge in a way that benefits the community. Mr Taylor advised that securing funding can be a lengthy process and five years allows for this.
Councillor Taylor asked the Applicant to clarify whether the ninety five percent of account based customers is specific to Lochgilphead or if it is UK wide. Allan Bain advised that all branches UK wide have similar figures.
Councillor Taylor advised that he was concerned about the Application being classed as ‘enabling development’ as there is no clarification as to what this development will be. Peter Bain advised that he understood Councillor Taylor’s concern as the proposal does not allow for a final use however advised that Harbro are putting in a large amount of investment into the Clock Lodge, covering the conservation deficit which will allow the building to be used.
Councillor Blair asked the Applicant what percentage of their overall sales was done via the internet. Allan Bain advised that Harbro does not trade through the internet. He advised that Harbro’s website provides the customer with information, however they want to encourage customers to come into their stores so that they can provide specialist advice on the best product to buy for their animals.
Councillor Blair asked the Applicant to confirm whether or not they were a member of the Mid Argyll Chamber of Commerce. The Applicant confirmed that they were not a member.
Councillor Blair asked the Chamber of Commerce when the proposed development was discussed. Alison Hay confirmed that it had been discussed several times, with many people raising concerns and it was discussed at a meeting a few months ago.
Councillor Currie referred to a comment made by planning regarding a petition, which contains over one hundred names of people supporting the project, and questioned whether we have this. Peter Bain advised that he only received the petition late last night but was happy to pass the petition onto the Head of Governance and Law. The Head of Governance advised that it was a petition from Lochgilphead Phoenix Project in support of the Page 37 application and stated that it contained over six pages of signatures. Councillor Currie asked the Head of Governance and Law to confirm what the title of the petition was which he did.
Councillor MacIntyre asked the Applicant to confirm whether the site apart from the percentage set aside for retail would be used for bulk storage. Allan Bain confirmed that the site would be used for increase storage and this would allow Harbro to store a wider range of products and also a larger quantity of products. Allan Bain provided an example of how the increased storage could benefit the farmers on the Islands. He advised that currently Harbro are unable to store enough food for farmers to take over to the Islands so they are required to travel outwith Argyll to gain the quantities they require, however if this application is approved and the site is built Harbro will be able to stock enough to supply farmers on the Islands.
Councillor MacIntyre asked the Applicant to confirm if they are required to get more deliveries in order to keep up with demand due to lack of the lack of storage facilities that they currently have. Allan Bain confirmed that this was the case and this new site would allow them to store more, meaning less deliveries, which will benefit the customers as costs will be low.
Councillor Colville sought clarification from the Applicant as to which parts of Argyll they deliver to. Catriona Crawford confirmed that they currently deliver from Southend to Dalmally.
Councillor McCuish referred to the proposed site being situated so close to a town centre and asked the Applicant to confirm if there are any other Harbro branches situated so close to a town centre. Allan Bain advised that the Harbro branch in Forfar is situated on the High Street.
Councillor Currie asked the Applicant to confirm whether there was still a store in Inverness. Allan Bain confirmed that there is store in Inverness and it is currently Harbro’s biggest store.
The Chair raised a concern with regard to planning condition 3, which states that bags of food must be sold in bulk bags of 15kg or greater, as he seen bags of 12kg in the shop during the site visit, and asked the Applicant to comment as to why they were present. Allan Bain advised that manufacturers often change the size of their bags without notice and that they would have to address that if permission is granted. The Chair stated that the conditions state that they can only sell in bulk of bags of 15kg or over and this will have to be monitored if the application is approved. The Chair asked planning to confirm how they would be able to monitor this. Peter Bain advised that they had decided on 15kg based on information they had received from the Applicant’s Agents. Peter Bain advised that planning would not be able to monitor this on a regular basis, however if any complaints were received they would investigate such complaints.
Councillor Freeman asked the Applicant to confirm if they have any concerns about the conditions that had been set by the planners. Mr Page 38
Taylor advised that the Applicant had no concerns about the conditions which had been set.
SUMMING UP
Planning
Richard Kerr advised that Section 25 of the Planning Act requires that applications should be determined in attendance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. He stated that the age of an adopted plan and how advanced a forthcoming plan is in the plan making process are material considerations, which can warrant more weight being given to emergent policy rather than adopted but outdated provisions. He reported that in this case, the adopted plan is the 2009 local plan which is due to reach the end of its five year plan period in August this year, without any community, tourism or recreation proposals having emerged for the site in accordance with the aspiration of the plan. He explained that the plan allocates the site for a variety of mixed uses but does not include for retail development. Any approved of this mixed use application including an element of retail sales would therefor amount to a departure from the provisions of the current local plan.
Richard Kerr informed the Committee that the plan is due to be replaced by the forthcoming Local Development Plan which is at an advanced stage with representations received in response to the proposed plan being about to be reviewed by government reporters, as a precursor to final approved and adoption of the plan. Those parts of the plan which have not been contested during public consultation can already be afforded significant weight, as the most up to date expression of planning policy by the Council, as they will not be revised by the reporters and will be incorporated as they stand at this point in the plan-making process into the finally adopted plan.
He stated that in recognition of the lack of development proposal having emerged for this site during the life of the current plan, and having regard to the pressing need to scene the future of the listed clock lodge, the new plan now designates the site as a ‘Potential Development Area’ which introduces the concept of ‘enabling development’. He advised that this means that the new plan offers support for forms of development with the ability to fund repairs to a heritage asset on the basis that the heritage benefits of the proposed development would outweigh any policy or other shortcomings of the development if it were to be considered in isolation.
Richard Kerr reported that the relevant provision in the new plan which is PDA 3013 has not been challenged during the public consultation stages of the plan, and accordingly material weight may be given to this over and above that attributed to the adopted plan. He advised that the enabling development attributes of the current proposal are therefore the justification for considering favourably a prospective ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the adopted local plan.
Richard Kerr advised that although it is important to consider the initial policy impediment it is also necessary to consider all the other aspects of Page 39 the proposal. He highlighted the established and long-standing position of the applicants in the town and the short comings of their existing premises. He referred to the lack of availability of other prospective development sites suited to the Applicant’s requirements which could be regarded as sequentially preferable locations in retail policy terms, with closer association with established retail areas. He outlined the opportunity presented by the development in adding the dereliction of the clock lodge and providing an enhanced opportunity for it to be further restored and for a productive purpose. He stated that the dual function of the proposed site access from the A83, which would afford a means of access to, and the opportunity to provide dedicated parking for, the clock lodge as well as serving the application proposal. He reported that the vacation of the applicant’s existing unit on the industrial estate would release this floor space to help meet demand for business premises, already oversubscribed at Kilmory. He highlighted the opportunity to address the long term neglect and deteriorating condition of the existing woodland, which is not sustainable in its current state. Despite the areas of felling required, the prospect of new planting and ongoing management of the trees is to the benefit of this woodland in the longer term.
Richard Kerr advised that there have been concerns expressed that the proposed represents undesirable out if town retailing, which poses a threat to other businesses in the town. He advised that competition between retailers is not a material planning consideration and therefore you should contrive yourselves to considerations which might pose a threat to the retail viability of Lochgilphead town centre as a whole, and not the interests of particular businesses. It is evident that there are no sites available to the applications which are better related to existing shopping areas. He stated that they are already trading in a peripheral area outside the town centre and have been doing so since 2001. He reported their intention is to improve their facilities in the context of their existing trading model, and not to expand into goods not previously sold. Richard Kerr advised that provided that there are safeguards by way of conditions to ensure that is the case, both in terms of the occupation of the premises by the applicants, and by any successive occupiers, then officers do not consider that town centre viability and vitality will be prejudiced, any more than it is by the applicants current operation at Kilmory.
Richard Kerr stated that in commending this application to the Committee, Planning have proposed conditions which preclude future sub-division of the unit, specify a maximum retail floor space relative to the associated bulky goods storage access, and provide for a maximum retail floor space for ancillary non-bulky comparison goods which overlap with the provision of town centre retailer.
Richard Kerr advised that in the view of Planning, these provide sufficient safeguards to protect the viability of the town centre and render the proposal acceptable in retail policy terms, with the exceptions of the conflict with adoption plan allocation MU AL/12/1 which renders the proposal as a prospective ‘departure’ to that plan. The proposal in otherwise compatible with other relevant provisions of the adopted plan, and the uncontested provisions of the emergent Local Development Plan, Page 40 which may therefore be accorded significant weight in the determination of the application. He commended the application for the reasoning set out in the report of handling and on the basis of the recommended conditions. He stated that these conditions either address those aspects requiring additional detail, or put restrictions in place to ensure that the development would be operated in accordance with the undertakings given by the appointment, both in terms of their occupation, and in the event of any subsequent third party occupation of the premised by another business capable of operating within the terms of this particular permission as recommended to the Committee. Subject to the effect of these conditions, there are no grounds which would warrant permission being withheld in this case.
Applicant
Graham Taylor stated to the members of the Committee that the proposed designs demonstrate Harbro’s commitment to the Clock Lodge. Mr Taylor emphasised the high quality of the proposed design that remains respectful to the history and surroundings of the Clock Lodge. He explained that Harbro have been fully compliant with the conditions set by Argyll and Bute Council and have met all the necessary requirements to meet the needs of the consultees. He stated that Harbro had successfully co-existed with other businesses in the town for a matter of years and although no one likes to see empty shops, Harbro cannot be to blame for their failings. He reported that it is clear from the planning conditions that Harbro are not looking to cause extra competition for Lochgilphead Town Centre they are simply looking to expand. He stated that if Harbro are unsuccessful in their Application the Clock Lodge will continue to go to a loss. Mr Taylor advised that although it is a ‘minor departure’ from the Local Development Plan, the proposed application is enabling development and therefore the positives should outweigh the departure. Graham Taylor reported that there would be no impact to the lodge or the setting if this application was to be approved. He advised the Committee that throughout the planning process Harbro have provided all the information that has been asked by them and have been flexible to ensure they met all the necessary requirements. Graham Taylor reported that Harbro are working alongside Lochgilphead Phoenix Project to ensure that if permission is granted the Clock Lodge is developed by a community group.
Objectors
Jane MacLeod
Jane MacLeod advised the Committee that MacLeod Construction feel that this application was not enabling development instead it was an opportunistic project which planning are viewing as a quick fix for the Clock Lodge. She reported that there is a number of uncertainties, the Lochgilphead Phoenix Project do not have any funding secured, and they have no certainty as to what Harbro will do with the Clock Lodge. She raised a concern that the Applicants have already shown that they are not fully committed to the conditions by displaying 12kg bags in their current store and having no solution in place to solve this problem. Planning have Page 41 stated that they will not be monitoring Harbro to see if they are compiling with the set conditions and therefore how can we be sure they will stick to all their conditions. She reported that Harbro are an excellent company and they have a large area to serve. She stated that businesses should be situated in the Kilmory Industrial Estate as set out in the Local Development Plan. Jane MacLeod advised that the submission of master plan for the proposed extension by MacLeod Construction shows that there is no delay on the extension of the Kilmory Industrial Estate. She advised that they feels that it is incorrect for Argyll and Bute Council to go against the Local Development Plan. She stated that MacLeod Construction feel that if the permission is to be granted the planning conditions need to be amended to state that before Harbro can begin building, they are required to fully renovate the Clock Lodge to meet the conditions set by Historic Scotland.
Graham Laing
Graham Laing stated that this project cannot be seen as enabling development and if wind and water tight is the benchmark then this is creating a dangerous precedent.
Alison Hay
Alison Hay informed the Committee that planning have suggested the Committee to look at Lochgilphead as a whole, she advised that the Mid Argyll Chamber of Commerce did look at Lochgilphead as a whole including the businesses who are in direct competition with Harbro. She advised that there are other sites available and the Planner’s should not disregard the adopted Local Development Plan. She reiterated that the planning conditions need to be monitored in particular the retail conditions to ensure they are complying with what was agreed. She advised that if this application is approved, the conditions should state that Harbro are not able to start building until the Clock Lodge is a compliant condition.
The Chair asked all those present to confirm if they had received a fair hearing and they all confirmed this to be the case.
DEBATE
Councillor Trail advised that the Committee had heard a great deal about guarantees for the future and stated that no one can predict future, however stated that he can guarantee if nothing is done to the Clock Lodge it will deteriorate. Councillor Trail stated that Harbro are committing to make the Clock Lodge wind and water tight. He advised that the proposal is sympathetic to the site and in his opinion that it will be nothing but an improvement to Lochgilphead. Councillor Trail advised that he would support the Planner’s recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor McCuish advised that he felt that Lochgilphead Town Centre was in an unhealthy state and felt that this site would not improve the condition of the Town Centre. He explained that he felt that this application was the right application however it was in the wrong place. Councillor McCuish stated that in his opinion the application had been Page 42 clouded by the Clock Lodge and if this was not part of the application it would be different. He stated that alternative sites would mean there would not be a requirement for a ‘minor departure’ from the Local Development Plan. Councillor McCuish stated that this was the right application but the wrong location and therefore would disagree with the planners.
Councillor Currie advised that the Argyll and Bute Council goes on about the importance of economic development and with a minor departure from the Local Development Plan we can allow this to happen. He stated that this site will allow for better distribution to Argyll and the Islands, save the Clock Lodge and create jobs. He advised that the Clock Lodge urgently requires to be saved and this is the opportunity to do so. Councillor Currie reported that people are arguing that the location is incorrect however you could say the same about Argyll Tyres or Jewson’s which you could also argue are in the wrong place. Councillor Currie stated that as there are no objections from consultees, and as Harbro currently trades alongside businesses within Lochgilphead Town Centre and it is only a small increase of retail space he has no hesitation in agreeing with the Planner’s recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor Taylor advised that he had lived in Lochgilphead for twenty four years and throughout these twenty four years there has been several people trying to develop the Clock Lodge and they have all come to nothing. He stated that the first thing you see when you come into Lochgilphead is a ruined building. Councillor Taylor advised that he believes that we need to take regard to the businesses that trade within the Town Centre and are in competition with Harbro. Councillor Taylor stated that Planning is all about supporting development today to help grow our communities for tomorrow. He advised that he feels that the conditions set by Planning protect the existing town centre and therefore he supports the Planner’s recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor McNaughton reported that he agrees with Councillors Currie and Taylor and feels that this would be a good development for Lochgilphead. He advised that the improvements to the Clock Lodge would make a huge difference to the entrance of Lochgilphead. He reported that the Clock Lodge has slightly clouded the application however despite this, he supports the Planner’s recommendations to approve the application.
Councillor Colville reported that it is a balance of issues. He advised that Councillor Currie made him realise that other sites do not have the Clock Lodge improvements. He reported that the Clock Lodge has been a prominent problem and we need to find a solution for it. Councillor Colville stated that people entering Lochgilphead are more likely to stop in the town if the Clock Lodge is renovated and there is promising development as it creates a positive ambience for the town. Councillor Colville stated that there are not many other places within Argyll and Bute where you can purchase animal feed and Harbro being located in Lochgilphead is an advantage for Argyll and Bute as a whole. Councillor Colville advised that he does not feel that this development will affect Lochgilphead Town Centre and he supports the Planner’s recommendation to approve the Page 43 application.
Councillor MacMillan advised that he had been aware of the Clock Lodge for a number of years and was delighted when he heard about Harbro’s plans. Councillor MacMillan advised that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Currie and supports the Planner’s recommendations to approve the application.
Councillor Blair advised that he felt he had to look at the wider economic issues and the opportunities that would arise in order for parties to work together and try and secure funding. He advised that he felt the Clock Lodge being involved in this application was a further advantage. He reported that he felt that if this application was to be approved it would allow Harbro to provide a good service to people throughout Argyll and Bute. He advised that a good quality business, developing in the area encourages other businesses to come to the area. Councillor Blair stated that he felt that this was the gateway to development and he supports the Planner’s recommendations to approve the application.
Councillor Freeman advised that all his points had been covered and he supports the Planner’s recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor McQueen reported that he supported the Planner’s recommendation to approve the application.
Councillor MacIntyre advised that most of his points have already been covered and stated that he feels that it is important to consider Harbro’s employees working in the current cramped site. He advised that he feels that the new site will allow for better Health and Safety. Councillor MacIntyre reported that he agrees with the Planner’s recommendations to approve the application.
Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he felt that planning decisions are difficult to make. He stated that he felt that the Clock Lodge had clouded the application as did the issue with alternative sites. He stated that he believes that the development will be a good gateway into Lochgilphead. He advised that he looks forward to seeing the Clock Lodge restored and stated that Planning have advised that the updated Local Development Plan has gone out for consultation and that there are no issues with the land being used to enable development. Councillor Kinniburgh reported that he agreed that 15kg bags or above are bulk and the Planner’s need to ensure that this is being stuck to. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he supports the Planner’s recommendation to approve the application.
DECISION
The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:-
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 8 December 2013 and the approved drawing reference numbers 1/21 – 21/21 unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other Page 44
materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Scotland) Order 1997 the development hereby approved shall be operated as a single retail unit and integrated storage and distribution facility which provides a maximum gross retail floor space of 200sqm and, which shall not be subdivided without the benefit of express planning permission. Members of the public shall be excluded from the storage and distribution facility. For the avoidance of doubt this consent does not confer a Class 1 retail use in respect of the site as a whole.
Reason: To afford the Planning Authority opportunity to fully assess the impact of such works (which might otherwise not require the benefit of express planning permission) in the interests of ensuring that they would not have a detrimental effect upon the vitality or viability of the Lochgilphead town centre.
3. The range of goods to be sold from the retail unit hereby approved shall be limited to those related to agricultural, horticultural and equestrian products of the nature specified below.
(a) Livestock feeds & supplements; (b) Animal health products; (c) Equine feeds, forages and supplements; (d) Dog food sold in bulk bags of 15kg or greater; (e) Birdfeed sold in bulk bags 15kg or greater, and bird feeders ; (f) Farm equipment and hardware. (g) Appropriate chemicals, fertilizers, weed killers, pest control products; (h) Appropriate clothing and footwear including boilersuits, overalls, personalprotective equipment, gloves, shirts, outdoor jackets, Wellington boots, workboots, riding boots and the like all appropriate to the agricultural/horticulturalworking environment and equestrian activities (e.g. sports and leisure wear,formal and casual footwear, dresses and suits would not be appropriate).
The products specified under h) above shall not cumulatively account for more than 12.5% of the gross retail floor space.
Any other products that are not listed specifically above but which can bedemonstrated to be ancillary to those listed above for the purposes of agricultural,horticultural and equestrian use shall not cumulatively account for more than 10% ofthe gross retail floor space.
Page 45
Reason: In order to restrict the use of the premises and ensure that the retail proposal does not adversely impact on Lochgilphead town centre.
4. No development pertaining to the construction of the ‘Harbro Store’ shall commence until the works identified as ‘Stage 1’ in the submitted Scope of Works (document dated August 2013) have been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless an alternative time period is agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Thereafter, the restoration works identified as ‘Stage 3B’ shall be completed to the first being brought into use, unless an alternative time period is agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the restoration/replacement of windows (including glazing within the dormers) shall be included within the Stage 3B works.
Reason: In order to underpin the justification for approval of planning permission as ‘enabling development’.
5. No development shall commence until details for the re-alignment of the stone boundary walls adjoining the A83(T) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to protect the historic environment.
6. No development shall commence until a Woodland Management Plan providing for the retention, augmentation and long term management of the extent of woodland within the application site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.
The Woodland Management Plan shall include schedule providing for a timetable for the implementation of its proposals and identify the provisions to be made for the on- going active management of the woodland.
Thereafter the specified works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved schedule and the woodland managed in accordance with the approved Woodland Management Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure the long term viability and management of adjacent woodland which will be directly affected by the development, and which it is vital to retain as a key feature in the historic environment/local landscape setting.
7. No development shall commence until a programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works has been Page 46
submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This programme shall include fencing at least one metre beyond the canopy spread of each tree in accordance with BS 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction”.
Tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of construction works in accordance with the duly approved scheme. None of the trees to be retained shall be lopped, topped or felled unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to retain trees as part of the development in the interests of the setting of the historic environment, amenity and nature conservation.
8. No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of:
i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Any proposed re-contouring of the site by means of existing and proposed ground levels. iv) Proposed hard and soft landscape works.
The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme.
All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity.
9. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of materials and colour finishes to be used in the construction of roof coverings and external walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
10. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, foul drainage from the Page 47
development shall be discharged to the public sewerage system.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of policy LP SERV 1 of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009.
11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C697. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding.
12. At least two months prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement (CMS) detailing all mitigation and pollution prevention measures to be implemented during construction of the development shall be submitted to and agreed by the 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, temporary construction site SUDS, fuel and chemical storage arrangements, the timing of works to avoid periods of high rainfall, buffer strips alongside watercourses, the management of waste streams, invasive non-native plant species, environmental management, along with monitoring proposals, contingency plans and reinstatement measures. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the duly approved CMS or any subsequently agreed variation thereof.
Reason: In the interests of pollution control and protection of the water environment.
13. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details for the permanent closure of the existing vehicular access to the site by physical means have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Scotland. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in advance of any building works commencing on site, and concurrently with the approved vehicular access to the development first being brought into use and the original means of access shall be closed to vehicular traffic and shall remain closed thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
14. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until scheme for the provision of pedestrian access to the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the development first being Page 48
brought into use.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
15. The parking and turning area shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans, and surfaced prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
16. The development shall be undertaken wholly in compliance with the mitigation measures set out in the submitted Ecological Constraints/Scoping Survey dated October 2013 and the Bat Survey Report dated November 2013 unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for a variation of these terms.
Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in compliance with mitigation measures identified within the submission as being necessary to protect European Protected Species and local biodiversity interests.
17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), no advertisement falling within Classes II, III, IV and VI of Part IV, Regulation 10 Schedule 4 of the Regulations shall be displayed within the application site boundary without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to allow the Planning Authority a degree of control over the display of advertisements benefiting from ‘deemed consent’ under the ‘advertisement’ regulations but which could, if unsympathetic, have potential to have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of the category B listed Clock Lodge.
18. No development shall commence until full details of any external lighting to be used within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, type, 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.
No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with the duly approved scheme.
Reason: In order to avoid light pollution in the interest of amenity.
19. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development hereby permitted shall be restricted to the specified operational hours of 08.00 – 18.00 hours on any day excepting Bank Holidays when the use shall not be permitted at all. Page 49
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area.
20. The development shall not begin until a scheme for protecting nearby residential properties from noise from fixed plant and equipment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the measures in the approved noise prevention scheme operate to the satisfaction of the Authority.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise disturbance.
21. Harbro shall cease trading from Kilmory Industrial Estate within one month of the development hereby approved first coming into operation.
Reason: To ensure that the retail proposal does not adversely impact on Lochgilphead town centre.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 4 April 2014, submitted)
Page 50
This page is intentionally left blank Page 51 Agenda Item 3c MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 18 JUNE 2014
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor George Freeman Councillor James McQueen Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Richard Trail
Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Angus Gilmour, Head of Regulatory Services Richard Kerr, Major Applications Team Leader Sandra Davies, Senior Planning Officer Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services Manager Lee Roberts, Trading Standards Manager Francis McNutt, Trading Standards Officer
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mary Jean Devon.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors McCuish, Trail, McMillan, Taylor and Blair declared a non- financial interest in items 18 (Argyll Estates: Inveraray Project Masterplan - Mast 1/5 Re Proposed Argyll And Bute Local Development Plan (Feb 2013): Argyll Estates, Inveraray (Ref: 13/02860/MPLAN)) and 19 (Stewart Mcnee (Dunoon) Ltd: Erection Of 8 Dwellinghouses And 4 Flats And Formation Of Vehicular Access, Parking And Infrastructure: Land North Of Barn Park, Inveraray (Ref: 14/01082/PP)), of this Minute due to their membership on the ACHA Board. They left the room and took no part in the determination of these applications.
3. MINUTES
(a) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2014 at 11.30 am were approved as a correct record.
(b) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2014 at 2.00 pm were approved as a correct record.
(c) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2014 at 2.20 pm were approved as a correct record. Page 52
(d) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2014 at 2.40 pm were approved as a correct record.
(e) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2014 at 3.00 pm were approved as a correct record.
(f) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 28 May 2014 were approved as a correct record.
(g) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 5 June 2014 were approved as a correct record.
(h) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 6 June 2014 were approved as a correct record.
4. FOOD SAFETY LAW ENFORCEMENT WORKPLAN AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY Consideration was given to a report presenting the Food Law Enforcement Workplan 2014/15 and enforcement policy. The plan details the arrangements which are in place to deliver the Council’s strategy duty as a ‘food authority’ under the Food Safety Act 1990 and as a “competent authority” under EU Food and Feed Law, in the areas of food hygiene, food standards and feed.
Decision
1. Endorsed the Food Safety Law Enforcement Plan 2014/15 and the enforcement policy attached to the report; and
2. Affirmed the statutory appointments of the Council’s Head of Food Safety, Lead Officer (Food Hygiene & Food Standard) and Lead Officer (Feed), the status of authorised officers within the Council, and the external appointments of Public Analyst, Agricultural Analyst and Food Examiners.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 11 June 2014, Food Safety Law Enforcement Plan 2014/15 and Enforcement Policies Summary, submitted)
5. PROPOSALS FOR AN 'APPROVED TRADER SCHEME' IN ARGYLL AND BUTE
On 17 April 2014 Members agreed the Council’s Protecting Consumers Action Plan which addressed the Audit Scotland report. Included in the Action Plan was the requirement to consider an ‘approved trader scheme’ for Argyll and Bute Council. The purpose of this scheme is to recognise and promote reputable and responsible businesses, assist consumers in making an informed choice when selecting a business and to support the Council’s existing strategies to combat rogue traders. In the absence of a national ‘approved trader scheme’ an options appraisal of various Page 53
‘approved trader’ schemes has been considered and evaluated. A report recommending that the Council join the ‘Buy with Confidence scheme’ was before Members for consideration.
Decision
1. Agreed to support the introduction of an ‘approved trader scheme’ in Argyll and Bute: and
2. Agreed to support the recommendation that the Council adopts the ‘Buy with Confidence’ scheme as opposed to the Construction Licensing Executive scheme as the former affords the opportunity for the Council to vet businesses, and that this scheme be implemented in a phased approach, targeted initially at the construction sector, with an annual review.
(Reference: Report by Executive Director – Development and Infrastructure Services Committee dated 3 June 2014, submitted)
6. STRACHUR HOUSING ALLOCATION (H-AL 2/15) MASTERPLAN REPORT (REF: 14/001330/MPLAN)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report advising that Strachur was designated in the adopted Local Plan as having two Housing Allocations Areas (ref: H-AL 2/14 at Creggans and H-AL 2/15 at Mid Letters). Under this designation a masterplan approached was required as part of the determination of any application for all or part of the site. Members will consider separately two applications; one for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land to the south east of Heather Cottage (ref: 13/01625/PP) and the other for the formation of the access road, the installation of the private sewerage system and the installation of the surface water drainage hall (all to serve a seven plot housing development) (ref: 14/00557/PP). A Masterplan for the Housing Allocation H-AL 2/15 was before Members for consideration. Whilst the Masterplan may require some fine tuning in some locations, it was considered that there was sufficient detail to assess the proposed development in principle. As such it was recommended that the Masterplan be approved and endorsed as a material consideration in the assessment of the current planning applications (references 13/01365/PP and 14/00557/PP).
The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to Supplementary report no.1 advising that the gradient limit for the adoption of a new road would normally be 8% (1 in 12), however up to 10% (1 in 10) has been accepted over short distances in the past. The gradient currently on site is 12.5% (1 in 8) and this would not be suitable for adoption as it would not be compliant with Disability Discrimination Act guidance. She advised that in these circumstances it was considered that there were sufficient and compelling reasons to justify a minor departure from Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 and to accept a private access to serving 7 houses.
Page 54
Decision
Noted the new information in respect of the access road contained within supplementary report no.1 and agreed to approve the Masterplan for Housing Allocation H-AL 2/15 as a minor departure from Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 and to endorse this as a material consideration in the assessment of current planning applications (references 13/01365/PP and 14/00557/PP).
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 29 May 2014 and Supplementary Report No. 1 dated 16 June 2014, submitted)
7. MR AND MRS HALL: ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE: PLOT 7, LAND TO THE SOUTH WEST OF HEATHER COTTAGE, STRACHUR (REF: 13/01625/PP)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report advising that planning permission was sought for the erection of one dwelling house located within one of the plots identified in application ref: 14/00557/PP and within the associated Masterplan for Housing Allocation H-AL 2/15. There have been no objections received from statutory consultees or third parties.
The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to supplementary report number 1 advising that the gradient limit for the adoption of a new road would normally be 8% (1 in 12), however up to 10% (1 in 10) has been accepted over short distances in the past. The gradient currently on site is 12.5% (1 in 8) and this would not be suitable for adoption as it would not be compliant with Disability Discrimination Act guidance. She advised that in these circumstances it was considered that there were sufficient and compelling reasons to justify a minor departure from Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 and to accept a private access to serving 7 houses. Whilst this new information would not have a direct bearing upon this application it would have implications for the report on application no 14/00557/PP dealt with at item 8 of this Minute.
The proposal was consistent with policies STRAT DC 1 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 and LP ENV 10, LP ENV 19 and LP HOU 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009 and was recommended for approval as a minor departure from Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 subject to conditions and reasons detailed in supplementary report number 1.
Decision
Noted the new information contained within supplementary report no.1 in respect of the gradient of the access road and agreed to grant planning permission as a minor departure to Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 subject to the following conditions and reasons:-
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings: Drawing No. HBS 01; Drawing No. HBS 02A; Drawing No. HBS 1.01; Drawing No. HBS 1.02; and Drawing No. HBS Page 55
1.03 unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the access onto the existing internal access shall be formed with visibility splays of 20 metres in both directions measured from a point 2.0 metres back from the edge of the carriageway at the centre point of the access. No walls, hedges, fences or other obstructions shall be allowed over a height of 1.0 metres above the level of the carriageway within these visibility splays. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse, the access to the site from the A886 road shall be constructed in accordance with the Road Layout and Road Details and Specification submitted with planning application 14/00557/PP unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the dwellinghouse is served by an access that is commensurate with the scale of development. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development, full details of the landscaping to take place within the plot shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of the location and species to be used together with a programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on- going maintenance. Particular attention should be paid in the plan to planting to the north of the dwellinghouse with a view to screening the underbuilding.
All of the landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To assist the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of visual amenity.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 11 June 2014 and Supplementary Planning Report No 1 dated 16 June 2014, submitted)
Page 56
8. ARCHD FERGUSSON LTD: FORMATION OF ACCESS ROAD, INSTALLATION OF PRIVATE SEWERAGE SYSTEM AND INSTALLATION OF SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE (ALL TO SERVE A SEVEN PLOT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT) AND SUBMISSION OF A HOUSING ALLOCATION MASTERPLAN: LAND TO THE SOUTH WEST OF HEATHER COTTAGE AND KIKUT, STRACHUR (REF: 14/00557/PP)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report advising that planning permission (ref: 08/1508/DET) was granted in April 2009 for the erection of seven dwellinghouses within the site. Works commenced on the site without the full discharge of suspensive conditions and the Application advised that they were altering the layout of the seven plots. This current application sought to formalise the works that have taken place whilst explaining the revised layout which was an improvement on the previous scheme. The proposal accords with policies STRAT DC 1 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 and policies LP ENV 10, LP ENV 19, LP HOU 1, LP HOU 2, and LP BAD 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan and was recommended for approval subject to conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.
The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to Supplementary report number 1 advising that the gradient limit for the adoption of a new road would normally be 8% (1 in 12), however up to 10% (1 in 10) has been accepted over short distances in the past. The gradient currently on site is 12.5% (1 in 8) and this would not be suitable for adoption as it would not be compliant with Disability Discrimination Act guidance. She advised that in these circumstances it was considered that there were sufficient and compelling reasons to justify a minor departure from Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 and to accept a private access to serving 7 houses. She requested that if Members were minded to approve the application that they agree to a change in wording at condition 4 to take account of this additional information.
Decision
Agreed to grant planning permission as a minor departure to Local Plan Policy LP TRAN 4 subject to the following conditions and reasons and informative notes to the Applicant:-
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings – Location Plan (scale 1:2500); Block plan Indicating Road Layout and Plot Locations; Block Plan Indicating Foul Water Disposal; Road Layout; Block Plan Indicating Surface Water Disposal; and Road Details and Specification unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. Prior to the occupation of the first residential unit, visibility splays Page 57
measuring 75 metres in both directions from a 2.4 metre setback shall be maintained at the junction with the A886 clear of all obstructions over 1 metre in height at all times.
Reason: In the interests of road safety
3. The proposed vehicle access to each dwelling shall have visibility splays of 20 metres x 2 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of each access. Prior to the occupation of each dwelling, these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height.
Reason: In the interests of road safety .
4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, prior to the occupation of the first residential unit, details of the final design and specification of the road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety to ensure the provision of a road commensurate to the scale of development.
5. No dwellinghouse served by the proposed access shall be occupied until the access has been fully constructed between the plot and the A886, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to ensure that any dwellinghouse is served by an access that is commensurate with the scale of development.
6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the sewage treatment plant shall not be brought into use until maintenance schedules for the plant and odour control measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Public Protection Services. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the construction of the sewage treatment plant has been completed and is fully operational in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of public health and amenity.
NOTES TO APPLICANT
3. In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was complete.
4. The Area Roads Manager has recommended the following:
• A system of surface water drainage should be provided to prevent Page 58
water running onto the A886 road;
• A channel must be formed at the uppermost passing place to direct water into the adjacent gully;
• A system of surface water drainage shall be provided to prevent the flow of surface water from each plot onto the access road;
• An inspection regime shall be formulated relating to the inlet grille of the 900 mm diameter culvert within Plot 7. Such a regime shall ensure that the grille does not become blocked with debris, etc.
• The developer shall supply a street name plate and a grit bin shall be placed at locations to be agreed with the Area Roads Manager;
• A Road Opening Permit will be required for any works on or adjacent to the A886 carriageway.
5. SEPA has recommended that, given a watercourse runs through Plots 3 and 4, the future developers of those plots should be aware that a buffer strip will be required between the watercourse and any development. In relation to Plot 4, they have highlighted that, although culverting for access may be acceptable, SEPA is opposed to culverting for land gain. This issue would need to be a consideration for any future application for Planning Permission.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 11 June 2014 and supplementary report number 1 dated 16 June 2014, submitted)
9. SRONDORE WIND FARMERS LLP: AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 13/01427/PP (ERECTION OF 3 WIND TURBINES WITH MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL OF 110M TURBINES 1 AND 2 AND 100M TURBINE 3, TOGETHER WITH A CONTROL BUILDING, ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING CRANE HARD STANDINGS AND ACCESS TRACK AND TEMPORARY GROUND WORKS) - INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF S1 AND S2 TURBINES FROM 110 METRES TO 120 METRES (TO BLADE TIP): LAND AT CRUAICH A' PHUBUILL (ADAJENT TO ALLT DEARG WINDFARM), ARDRISHAIG (REF: 14/00489/PP)
The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report advising that this proposal related to a consented but unimplemented three turbine wind farm on land adjoining the operational wind farm at Allt Dearg to the south of Ardrishaig (ref: 13/01427/PP). The current amended proposal sought to increase the hub height of consented Srondore turbines S1 and S2 from 70m to 80m as a result of the use of taller towers. The turbine rotor diameter would remain as previously consented. The consequence was that the overall tip height of these two turbines would increase from 110m to 120m. Turbine 3 remains unaffected at 110m to tip and would be implemented as per original Page 59 consent. The locations of all three turbines will remain within the micro- siting tolerances permitted by the original consent. There were no objections to the proposal from consultees or third parties. SNH have however advised against permission being given which was in line with their previous advice on the originally consented Srondore scheme which was against mixing the size of turbines. The marginal difference between the extent of the visual influence of the consented and the proposed amended turbines was not such as to warrant a refusal notwithstanding SNH’s stated desire to limit any variation in scale between the Allt Dearg and Srondore schemes. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling and to the amendment of the previously concluded Section 75 legal agreement relative to planning permission 13/01427/PP.
Decision
Agreed to grant planning permission subject to the amendment of the previously concluded Section 75 Legal Agreement relative to planning permission 13/01427/PP to ensure its obligations relative to the requirement for Decommissioning Bond and a contribution from the operation of the site towards the implementation of the existing Allt Dearg Habitat and Landscape Enhancement Plan, apply equally to the amended development permitted by this consent as well as the original permission for the Srondore wind farm development and subject to the following conditions and reasons:-
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), 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 June 2013 associated with planning permission 13/01427/PP) 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 Page 60
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 the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement associated with planning permission 13/01427/PP (dated June 2013) and the plans listed below:
1 of 2 - Site Location Plan Fig 2.1 2 of 2 – Wind Turbine Details (80m hub) Fig 2.3
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 nature conservation and amenity.
4. 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. Micro-siting may be agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority as follows:
a. Each turbine shall be erected in the position indicated on the approved Site Location Plan Fig. 2.1;
b. A variation of the indicated position of any turbine on the approved Site Location Plan Fig. 2.1 by less than 25 metres shall only be permitted following the approval of the Ecological Clerk of Works;
c. A variation of between 25 metres and 50 metres shall only be permitted following written approval of the 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 co-ordinates compatible with the UK Ordnance Survey.
Reason: In order to demonstrate that the windfarm has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
5. If, by reason of any circumstances not foreseen by the applicant, it becomes necessary or expedient during the continuance of the Page 61
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.
6. 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.
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.
7. The wind turbines shall be finished in a non-reflective grey semi-matt colour (RAL 9002, RAL 7035 or similar), or such other colour as may 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. The turbine blades shall all rotate in the same direction as the those of the Allt Dearg windfarm .
Reason: To reduce the impact of the turbines and minimise reflection in the interest of visual amenity.
8. 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, other than statutory health and safety notices at the base of the towers, without the prior approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the upland rural character of the area in the interests of visual amenity.
9. Before the cessation of the planning permission, a decommissioning plan, including a site-specific decommissioning method statement, 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 Page 62
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.
10. 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, or as close as is practicable, 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.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
11. 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. 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, construction works associated with watercourse crossings, the management of surface water run-off, 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 or any subsequently agreed variation thereof.
Reason: In the interests of pollution control and protection of the water environment.
12. 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. The restoration method statement shall provide restoration proposals for those areas disturbed by construction works, including access tracks, hardstandings and other construction areas. It shall also include measures for the improvement in appearance of the main site access route from the A83 to the location of the turbines in order to mitigate its appearance in long distance views of the site. 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. Page 63
13. No development or ground breaking works shall commence until a method statement for an archaeological watching brief has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. The method statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall provide for the recording, recovery and reporting of items of interest or finds within the application site. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details with the suitably qualified person being afforded access at all reasonable times during ground disturbance works.
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.
14. The implementation of the development shall be supervised by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW0 whose role should encompass all construction aspects of the development. The ECoW should be responsible for the micro-siting of the development to take account of localised nature conservation interests and the timing of works to avoid disturbance to breeding birds, in order that good practice methods are employed to ensure that sensitive features are avoided and that appropriate mitigation and site restoration measures are identified and 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.
15. The level of wind turbine noise shall not exceed 35dB LA90, 10 minutes when measured at any residential property in accordance with the methodology of ETSU-R-97. The noise should in addition contain no audible tonal and/or impulsive components so as to cause noise nuisance to the occupiers of any residential dwelling.
Reason: To minimise any adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the local community.
16. 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 of ETSU-R-97 and take such remedial action agreed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To help control and minimise noise pollution.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 14 May 2014, submitted) Page 64
10. MRS MARY TURNER: ERECTION OF 40.4M (BLADE TIP) WIND TURBINE ERECTION OF 40.4M (AMENDED BY PLANNING CONDITION TO 35M TO BLADE TIP): LAND APPROXIMATELY 515M NORTH WEST OF AUCHENHOAN COTTAGE, CAMPBELTOWN (REF: 14/00589/PP)
The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report advising that permission was sought for the erection of a 40.5m to blade tip wind turbine on land approximately 515m north west of Auchenhoan Cottage. The turbine itself would sit within Sensitive Countryside development control zone as per policy STRAT DC 5 and the access track would be located in the Rural Opportunity Area development control zone. For the purposes of this report the application was assessed under policy LP REN 1. Through a planning condition it was proposed to limit the height of the proposed wind turbine to 35m to blade tip and the Applicant has agreed to this approach. Such a condition was necessary to ensure the proposal was consistent with the Council’s Wind Energy Capacity Study. There were no concerns from consultees that could not be addressed via planning conditions. Thirteen representations have been received from third parties all objecting to the proposals. The proposal was considered consistent with the Councils Wind Energy Capacity Study and policy LP REN 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009 given the minimal impact on the landscape as a result of the rising land and back dropping opportunities afforded by the landscape north and west. The Applicant has provided details of the method of transporting the turbine to the site and the Council’s Roads Engineer has raised no concerns subject to conditions. With this in mind the proposal was considered consistent with the provisions of policy LP TRAN 4. The proposal conformed to the relevant development plan policies and there were no other material considerations, including issues raised by third parties, which would warrant anything other than the application being determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan. The proposal was recommended for approval subject to conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.
Decision
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 06/03/2014 and the approved drawing reference numbers:
Plan 1 of 2 Plan 2 of 2
unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Page 65
2. Notwithstanding the details of the approved plans the turbine blade tip height shall not exceed 35m. No development shall commence or is hereby authorised until details of the amended wind turbine are submitted to the planning authority for prior approval. These details shall cover the wind turbine dimensions to a 1:100 scale.
Reason: For the purpose of clarity over the application approved and to ensure compliance with the Council’s Wind Energy Capacity Study (WECS).
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/001 Rev a and visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 75 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter.
Any gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 6.0 metres from the carriageway edge and open inwards.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
4. If by reason of any circumstances not foreseen by the applicant or operator, the wind turbine fails to produce electricity, either consumed at source or via a local distribution 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 reinstated to a condition equivalent to that of the land adjoining the application site within a period of 6 months unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the full and satisfactory restoration of the site takes place should the turbine fall into disuse.
5. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1 and the details specified in the application, no development shall commence until details of the colour finish to be applied to the turbine have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented using the approved colour scheme and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
Page 66
6. Development shall not commence until details of aircraft warning lighting safety to be installed at the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence and Highlands and Islands Airports Limited. The duly approved aircraft warning lighting shall be installed concurrently with the installation of the wind turbine and thereafter maintained for the duration of the development.
Reason: In the interests of air safety.
7. Development shall not commence until such time as the developer has provided written notification of the development to UK DVOF & Powerlines at the Defence Geographic Centre. Such notification shall include details of: a. the precise location of the development; b. date of commencement of construction; c. expected date of completion of construction; d. the height above ground level of the tallest part of the structure; e. the maximum extension height of any construction equipment; and, f. details of the aviation warning lighting to be fitted to the structure.
Reason: In the interest of air safety.
8. During construction, no unloading/loading of vehicles shall be undertaken from the public road, nor shall any materials, equipment or plant associated with the construction of the development be stored adjacent to the public road without the prior written approval of the Roads Authority.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2014, submitted)
11. MR STUART ANDERSON: ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS (AMENDED DESIGN RELATIVE TO PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 11/00399/PP): 146 FREDERICK CRESCENT, PORT ELLEN, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 14/00653/PP)
The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report advising that the application site was located within the defined settlement boundary for Port Ellen and also within the Port Ellen Conservation Area. He referred to the history of this site and previous applications and advised that this current application was partly to regularise discrepancies between the ‘as built’ position and the 2011 permission (ref: 11/00399/DET) and also to reduce the finished floor level of the resulting building following the results of a new flood risk assessment and consultation with SEPA. The current proposal also amended the external appearance of the building slightly although its overall size, design, detailing and layout would remain nearly identical to the development previously approved in 2011. The scale and form of the proposed development was considered acceptable for its location within this part of the Port Ellen Conservation area and having due regard both to the Page 67 comments and objections of the owner of a neighbouring dwellinghouse and to the planning history of the site the proposed development was considered to be compliant with the provisions of the Development Plan in this regard, notably to policies STRAT DC 9, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 14, LP ENV 19 and LP CST 1. The proposed development raised no access, servicing or infrastructure issues and was wholly compliant with Development Plan policies LP SERV 4, LP TRAN 4 and LP TRAN 6. The development has been properly assessed in accordance with the statutory flood risk framework and has been found to be acceptable subject to the provision of a minimum finished floor level of 3.4 metres above ordnance datum and was considered acceptable and in accordance with the provisions of Development Plan policies STRAT DC 10 and LP SERV 8. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and reasons detailed in the report.
Decision
Agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons and subject to the addition of a further condition stating that timber framed external doors and windows were used throughout the development:-
1. The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the details specified in the application form dated 12 th March 2014; and the approved drawings numbered 1 of 12 to 12 of 12 and stamped approved by Argyll and Bute Council.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the details submitted and the approved drawings.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1 above, the type and colour of materials to be used in the development shall be as specified on the approved Design Statement and as annotated on the approved drawings, with the exception of the roof covering which shall be of natural slate to a specification to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site. In addition, full details of all of the proposed windows and external doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site. Notwithstanding the submitted details, it is anticipated that the windows and external doors, particularly to the front elevation of the building (fronting onto Frederick Crescent) shall consist of traditional timber sash and case windows and timber close boarded doors.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings and in order to protect the character and appearance of the Port Ellen Conservation Area.
3. No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: Page 68
i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Any proposed re-contouring of the site by means of existing and proposed ground levels. iv) Proposed hard and soft landscape works.
The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme.
All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E and Part 2 and Classes 8 and 9 of the of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below:
PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE
Class 1A: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a single storey ground floor extension, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement.
Class 1B: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a ground floor extension consisting of more than one storey, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement.
Class 1D: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof.
Class 2B: Any improvement, addition or other alteration to the external appearance of a dwellinghouse that is not an enlargement.
Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building.
Class 3B: The carrying out of any building, engineering, installation or Page 69
other operation within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface.
Class 3D: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any deck or other raised platform within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse.
Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.
PART 2: SUNDRY MINOR OPERATIONS
Class 8: Formation of means of access to an unclassified road.
Class 9: Stone cleaning or painting of the exterior of a building.
No such development shall be carried out at any time within this Part and these Classes without the express grant of planning permission.
Reason: To protect the sensitive area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, in the interest of visual amenity and public health, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended).
5. The proposed access shall be formed with visibility splays of 20.0 x 2.0 metres in each direction formed from the centreline of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over 1.05 metres in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
6. Prior to work starting on site, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s standard highway drawing SD 08/005, Revision A
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the layout and surfacing of a parking and turning area to accommodate 2 vehicles within the application site Page 70
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2014, submitted)
12. LUSS ESTATES COMPANY: SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUBHOUSE: RHU BOWLING CLUB, MANSE BRAE, RHU (REF: 14/00821/PPP)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report advising that planning permission in principle was sought for the erection of a residential development at Rhu Bowling Club, Manse Brae, Rhu. The site was within the Rhu Conservation Area and within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) as defined by the adopted Local Plan. Within Conservation Areas development must be of the highest quality and respect the architectural qualities of the area. Applications for planning permission in principle would not normally be considered appropriate in these areas. Within OSPAs there was a presumption against the redevelopment of established playing fields or sports pitches. As the Applicant had submitted insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposed development on the character and amenity of adjoining properties and whether it will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Rhu Conservation Area the proposal was considered contrary to Policy LP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan. It was also not considered that the Applicant had fulfilled the criteria set out in Policy LP REC 2. Rhu and Shandon Community Council have objected to this proposal and 18 letters and emails of objection have also been received from third parties. The proposed Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan was a material consideration in the determination of this application. In terms of this application site and the proposed development, the plan maintained the same policy approach and there were no policies or guidance which would alter the recommendation of refusal for the reasons stated in the report of handling.
Motion
Agree to refuse planning permission in principle for the following reasons:-
1. The applicant has submitted insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposed development on the character and amenity of adjoining properties and whether it will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Rhu Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy LP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan which states that outline planning applications (planning permissions in principle) will not normally be considered appropriate for proposed development in conservation areas and which presumes Page 71
against development which does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
2. The application site is designated as an Open Space Protection Area where there is a presumption against redevelopment of these sites. The proposed development will result in the loss of this area of open space and no provision of equal community benefit has been provided elsewhere. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown that the site has been actively marketed, or that any real effort has been made to preserve its use as a playing field. No details have been provided to show that there is a long term excess of playing fields within the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LP REC 2 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.
Moved Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded Councillor Sandy Taylor.
Amendment
To continue consideration of the application to a future meeting to allow Members to obtain further information on the legal position in respect of the lease of the ground.
Moved Councillor George Freeman, seconded Councillor Robert G MacIntyre.
On a show of hands vote the Motion was carried by 11 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly.
Decision
Agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-
1. The applicant has submitted insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposed development on the character and amenity of adjoining properties and whether it will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Rhu Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy LP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan which states that outline planning applications (planning permissions in principle) will not normally be considered appropriate for proposed development in conservation areas and which presumes against development which does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
2. The application site is designated as an Open Space Protection Area where there is a presumption against redevelopment of these sites. The proposed development will result in the loss of this area of open space and no provision of equal community benefit has been provided elsewhere. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown that the site has been actively marketed, or that any real effort has been made to preserve its use as a playing field. No details have been provided to show that there is a long term excess of playing fields within the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LP REC 2 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan. Page 72
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2014, submitted)
13. MRS MARGARET MUIR: INSTALLATION OF GROUND MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY (RETROSPECTIVE): THE ANCHORAGE, MINARD, INVERARAY (REF: 14/00861/PP)
The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report advising that retrospective planning permission had been submitted as a result of an enforcement investigation following a number of complaints in respect of the installation of ground mounted photovoltaic array erected within the front garden ground of The Anchorage, Minard, Inveraray. The current application has been subject to objection from 9 parties. The development was not considered to satisfy the requirements of policies STRAT RE 2, STRAT DC 8, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 19 or LP REN 3 of the Development Plan and was recommended for refusal for the reason detailed in the report of handling.
Decision
Agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reason:-
The development, by virtue of its location, massing, prominence and general appearance, is considered to have a significant adverse effect upon the character of the existing built environment, the amenity of the locale, detracts from a key component of a valued wider landscape setting and is a hazard to the safety of traffic on the A83(T) and is therefore considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of policies STRAT RE 2 and STRAT DC 8 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002, and policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 19 and LP REN 3 of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2014, submitted)
14. SCOTTISH WATER: ERECTION OF 3 X 5KW WIND TURBINES (15M HUB HEIGHT, 17.7M BLADE TIP): WATER TREATMENT WORKS, TARBERT ROAD, CAMPBELTOWN (REF: 14/00863/PP)
The Major Applications Team Leader advised that this application had been withdrawn on 17 June 2014 and would not require consideration by the Committee.
15. MR THOMAS PATERSON AND MRS MARGERY OSBORNE: ERECTION OF 1.8 METRE HIGH FENCE AND GATES (RETROSPECTIVE): LAND OPPOSITE 21 TO 25 CUMBERLAND AVENUE, HELENSBURGH (REF: 14/00885/PP)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report advising that planning permission was sought retrospectively for the erection of a 1.8 metre high fence and gates on land at Cumberland Avenue, Helensburgh. The site was located in the west of the town and had a complex planning Page 73
history. On Cumberland Avenue the boundary treatments were characterised by low walls and hedges. The only other fence was directly opposite on the Applicants’ site where they had built 3 houses. Even here the fence was to the side and rear and the front of the properties retained their open aspect. The fence erected along the boundary of the land to Cumberland Avenue represented an alien and formal boundary treatment which undermined the previously attractive context of the street merging with the open space. The retention of the fence also undermined the Council’s objectives to seek to restore the amenity value of the site caused by the unauthorised felling of protected trees on land subject to a Tree Preservation Order. There have been 15 letters and emails of objection and 3 emails of support received in connection with this application. Helensburgh Community Council have also submitted an objection. The application was recommended for refusal for the reason stated in the report of handling.
Decision
Agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reason:-
On Cumberland Avenue the boundary treatments are characterised by low walls and hedges. The only other similar fence is directly opposite on the applicants’ site where they have built 3 houses. Even here the fence is to the side and rear and the front of the properties retain their open aspect. Assessed on its merits against development plan policy and other material considerations the wooden fence erected along the boundary of the land to Cumberland Avenue represents an alien and formal boundary treatment which undermines the previously attractive context of the street merging with the open space and which added considerable quality to the street scene at this point. The retention the fence also undermines the Council’s objectives to seek to restore the amenity value of the site caused by the unauthorised felling of protected trees on land subject to a Tree Preservation Order and where a Tree Replanting Notice has been upheld by a Reporter at appeal (DPEA Reference TENA-130-2000). The retention of the fence would therefore screen the site separating it from the street scene and undermine the Council’s objectives of restoring the appearance and associated amenity value of the land to the locality contrary to the objectives of Policy LP ENV 1 of the adopted local plan.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 5 June 2014, submitted)
16. MR TONY HILL: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FOR SITING OF TIMBER SHED, INSTALLATION OF PETROL STORAGE TANK AND ERECTION OF ASSOCIATED FENCING: LAND ADJACENT TO PUBLIC CAR PARK, ELLENABEICH, ISLE OF SEIL (REF: 14/00914/PP)
The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report advising that in terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan the site was situated within the minor settlement zone of Ellenabeich and was also situated within the Ellenabeich Conservation Area. The application Page 74
has been the subject of 13 representations, 11 of objection and 2 in support. All the representations were from local addresses and this level of interest in the application was of significance in the context of a small community. The range of issues raised were broad and the majority of them related to legitimate planning matters. For this reason it was recommended that a discretionary hearing be held in advance of determining this application.
Decision
Agreed to hold a pre determination hearing at the earliest opportunity following the Council recess in July.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 10 June 2014, submitted)
17. COSTA COFFEE: CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS 1 (RETAIL) TO COMBINED CLASS 1 AND CLASS 3 (RETAIL AND FOOD AND DRINK) INCLUDING EXTERNAL SEATING AREA: UNIT 1, KILMARTIN COURT, STATION ROAD, OBAN (REF: 14/00942/PP)
The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report advising that planning permission was sought for the change of use from Class 1 (retail) to combined Class 1 and Class 3 (retail and food and drink) along with the formation of an external seating area within premises which were currently unoccupied having been last used as a retail unit with two separate occupiers. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan the site was within the main town centre of Oban. The proposal has elicited 26 representations, 25 objections and 1 in support. There have been no objections from statutory consultees. Whilst the proposal has elicited a number of representations it was not considered that the application raised any complex or technical issues. Most objections were based on issues that were not material planning considerations, such as legitimate business competition. Given that the site was situated within the main town centre of Oban were there was a presumption in favour of new commercial uses in Class 1, 2 and 3 it was not considered that a hearing would add value to the process. It was considered that the use of the building as a food and rink outlet with part retail use fit well with the established development within this area of the town. The proposal accorded with Policies STRAT DC 1 of the approved Argyll and Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP BAD 1, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 19, LP RET 1, LP TRAN 1 and LP TRAN 6 of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan and was recommended for approval subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.
Decision
Agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:-
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 14/04/14 and the approved drawing reference numbers: Page 75
Plan 1 of 10 (Location Plan) Plan 2 of 10 (Drawing Number 1.0 D) Plan 3 of 10 (Drawing Number 1.1 A) Plan 4 of 10 (Drawing Number 1.2 F) Plan 5 of 10 (Drawing Number 2.0 B) Plan 6 of 10 (Drawing Number 2.1 B) Plan 7 of 10 (Drawing Number 4.2 D) Plan 8 of 10 (Barrier Specification) Plan 9 of 10 (External Furniture Specification) Plan 10 of 10 (Planning Supporting Statement)
unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. No development shall commence until a Noise Assessment for the proposed development has been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Environmental Health Unit. The assessment should identify the levels of noise likely to be generated by the general operations of the proposed development and in particular any significant individual sources of noise arising from the operation of specific items of plant/equipment within the premises i.e. refrigeration plant/air conditioning, extract systems etc. The assessment must also identify the attenuation provided by the structure and any additional controls/measures to be adopted to prevent the transmission of noise.
The development shall not be brought into use until the approved noise attenuation measures have been implemented in full. Thereafter the development shall only be operated in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to avoid noise nuisance in the interest of amenity.
3. Outwith opening hours, the external seating area comprising tables, chairs and barriers erected on the footway, shall be removed from the footway and securely stored.
Reason: To safeguard the environmental amenity of the area and in the interests of pedestrian and road safety.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, a minimum pavement width of 2 metres shall be maintained at all times between the external barriers enclosing the pavement café and the public litter bin.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety. Page 76
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no preparation of hot food shall take place on the premises other than that specified in the ‘Planning Supporting Statement prepared for Costa’ accompanying the application without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to avoid odour nuisance in the interest of amenity and the inability of the building to accommodate sufficient extract ventilation.
Councillor Currie having moved an amendment which failed to find a seconder requested that his dissent be recorded from the foregoing decision.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2014, submitted)
Having previously declared an interest in the following 2 items of business, Councillors McCuish, Trail, McMillan, Taylor and Blair left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of these items.
18. ARGYLL ESTATES: INVERARAY PROJECT MASTERPLAN - MAST 1/5 RE PROPOSED ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FEB 2013): ARGYLL ESTATES, INVERARAY (REF: 13/02860/MPLAN)
The Head of Planning and Regulatory Services spoke to the terms of the report advising that within the emerging Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) (February 2013) the Council has proposed a Mixed use Allocation (MU 3001) for the development of 150 dwellings, business (Class 4), tourism (including hotel) and community facilities on land to the west of Newtown and to the north of Barn Park. The proposed allocation was underpinned by the requirement that a Strategic Masterplan (designation MAST 1/5) should be endorsed by the Council in advance of any development proceeding. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009, the central portion of the masterplan area lay within an area designated as ‘countryside around settlement’ wherein there was a general presumption against development. The remainder of the masterplan area lay within two housing allocations (H-AL 9/1 and H- AL 9/2). Given that the emergent LDP allocation has been uncontested during public consultation, it may be accorded significant weight at this stage in the plan making process. The active promotion of development of the masterplan area therefore represented the settled view of the Council, which would justify as a ‘minor departure’ development which did not accord with the provisions of the current, but soon to be superceded local plan. The components of the mixed use scheme were considered to be compatible with the proposed LDP Mixed Use Allocation 3001 and MAST 1/5. Whilst the masterplan required considerable further development it was considered that there was sufficient detail to assess the merits of the overall development concept/vision and to allow the immediate release of land identified as Phase 1 of the proposed development. It was recommended that the masterplan be approved and Page 77
endorsed as a material consideration in the future determination of planning applications within the masterplan area, with recognition that such endorsement represented a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the adopted Local Plan at the current stage in the plan making process.
Decision
Agreed to approve the masterplan and endorse this as a material consideration in the future determination of planning applications within the masterplan boundary, recognising that this endorsement represented a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the adopted Local Plan at the current stage in the plan making process.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 12 June 2014, submitted)
19. STEWART MCNEE (DUNOON) LTD: ERECTION OF 8 DWELLINGHOUSES AND 4 FLATS AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS, PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE: LAND NORTH OF BARN PARK, INVERARAY (REF: 14/01082/PP
The Head of Planning and Regulatory Services spoke to the terms of the report advising that this proposal related to development within a larger site identified as housing allocation H-AL9/2 within the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan for 8 units with 25% affordability. This designation was in the process of being superceded by the uncontested, emergent provisions of the Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan which set out the Council’s intent to subsume the current Housing Allocation within a larger Mixed Use Allocation (MU 3001) within which support was afforded for up to 150 dwelling units following the endorsement by the Committee of the Masterplan for designation MAST 1/5. The proposal set out a ‘medium scale’ affordable housing development comprising a mixture of terraced housing, flats and ambulant disabled units to be developed for and managed by the Argyll Community Housing Association. Whilst the application has been the subject of two letters of support, and indirectly, two letters of objection, which raised road safety concerns, it was the consideration of Council Officers and that of the statutory consultees that the proposed development could adequately be accessed via the existing public road network subject to commensurate improvement of footpaths along this route. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.
Decision
Agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:-
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 1 st May 2014 and the approved drawing reference numbers 1/17 – 17/17 unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Page 78
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. The development hereby permitted shall only be implemented by (or on behalf of) a Registered Social Landlord (a body registered under part 3 chapter 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, or any equivalent provision in the event of the revocation and re-enactment thereof, with or without modification) and shall not enure for the benefit of any other person, company or organisation.
Reason: To ensure the provision of affordable housing to the standard required by the development plan in the absence of any other agreed means of securing such provision.
3. No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of:
i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii) Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates – this shall include the provision of a deciduous native hedgerow to the north, western and southern site boundaries, and removal (if possible) of existing eastern boundary fencing between the application site and Argyll Court; iv) Surface treatment of means of access/footpaths, and parking/turning areas; v) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted – this shall include details of planting/landscape works within the parking court and limited tree planting within the hedgerow northern, western and southern site boundaries, and provision of replacement planting to mitigate for loss of the mature tree which lies on the site access route; vi) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance.
All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Page 79
Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity.
4. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the development shall be completed externally using the following materials:
External walls to be finished in a white, wet dash render;
Roof covering to be slate substitute tiles coloured dark blue/grey (Redland Cambrian Slate or equivalent), or natural slate;
Or, such alternatives as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
5. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until written details of the type and colour of materials to be used in the construction of external facia/eaves, rainwater goods and any window/door bands have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
6. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until specifications, including material and colour finishes of the window and door units to be installed in the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C697. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding.
8. No development shall commence until such time as a programme of works for the delivery of an adoption standard footpath of a minimum width of 1.5 metres between the A83(T) and the public road known as the Avenue (via Barn Brae) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Roads Authority. Page 80
Thereafter, the duly approved programme of works shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the agreed timetable.
Reason: In the interest of road safety, to ensure the provision of commensurate improvement to substandard elements of the public road network which would be subject to increased vehicular/pedestrian movements arising from the development.
9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed with visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 42.0 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
10. The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 12 June 2014, submitted)
Councillors McCuish, MacMillan, Trail, Taylor and Blair rejoined the meeting.
20. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989: PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF 10MW DEMONSTRATION TIDAL ARRAY INCLUDING CABLE LANDFALL AND SUB STATION: SOUND OF ISLAY, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 14/01152/S36)
Consideration was given to a report advising of a consultation from Marine Scotland in respect of an application under the Electricity Act by Scottish Power to deploy and operate a tidal energy array in the Sound of Islay, with the installation of export cables and the construction of associated onshore infrastructure. The report recommended views to be conveyed to Marine Scotland on behalf of the Council as Planning Authority in respect of the consent sought under Section 36 of the Act which, if it were granted, would include a Direction that planning permission for the onshore development be deemed to be granted.
Page 81
Decision
The Committee agreed that:-
(a) no objection be raised to the principle of the project as a whole or the details of the marine component of the scheme;
(b) no objection be raised to the issuing of a Direction that deemed planning permission be granted to the onshore elements of the proposal, subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions (having regard also to views expressed by other consultees), in order to secure inter alia those matters listed in the appendix to the report; and
(c) Marine Scotland be notified accordingly, with a request that draft conditions be the subject of further consultation with Officers prior to the issuing of any consent, having regard to the fact that those conditions will become the responsibility of the Council to enforce.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 5 June 2014, 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 5 items of business on the grounds that they were likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13; 13; 13; 13; and 13 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Councillors Blair and McNaughton left the meeting at this point and did not return.
21. ENFORCEMENT UPDATE - 13/00328/ENFOC2
Consideration was given to an update on Enforcement Case reference 13/00328/ENFOC2.
Decision
Agreed to the recommendation detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 16 June 2014, submitted)
Councillor MacDougall left the meeting at this point and did not return.
22. ENFORCEMENT UPDATE - 14/00059/ENFLB
The update on Enforcement Case reference 14/00059/ENFLB was considered.
Decision
Noted the update. Page 82
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 16 June 2014, submitted)
23. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - 14/00022/ENFHSH
Consideration was given to Enforcement Case reference 14/00022/ENFHSH.
Decision
Agreed to the recommendation detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 30 May 2014, submitted)
24. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - 13/00099/ENOTH2
Consideration was given to Enforcement Case reference 13/00099/ENOTH2.
Decision
Agreed to the recommendation detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, submitted)
25. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - 11/00107/ENOTH2, 13/00093/ENOTH3 AND 13/00384/ENOTH 3
Consideration was given to an update on Enforcement Case references 11/00107/ENOTH2, 13/00093/ENOTH3 AND 13/00384/ENOTH 3
Decision
Agreed to the recommendation detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, submitted)
Page 83 Agenda Item 3d MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 30 JUNE 2014
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robert G Councillor Robin Currie MacIntyre Councillor George Freeman Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Alex McNaughton
Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Central Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors James McQueen, Sandy Taylor and Richard Trail.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF WINDOW CLEANER'S LICENCE (J BURNS, TIGHNABRUAICH)
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that notification had been received that the Applicant would not be in attendance at the hearing. Sheila MacFadyen confirmed that Legal Services had received proof of delivery of the paperwork issued to the Applicant in respect of this hearing which would enable the Members to consider the application in his absence if they wished.
The Committee agreed to consider the application and the Chair asked if Members wished to make any comment. Sheila MacFadyen advised that Legal Services would need to check if the Applicant had valid public liability insurance. She stated that they had been notified that the insurance referred to in the application form had been cancelled by the insurance company due to non payment of the premium. The Committee were advised that if they wished to grant the window cleaner licence then they would need to attach a suspensive condition. She confirmed that the application was before Members because the Applicant had declared a conviction. She advised that the Police had submitted no objection to this application. When asked she confirmed that the Applicant had previously held a window cleaner licence which had expired in 2011.
Councillor McNaughton advised that he had no objection to this application. Page 84
Decision
It was unanimously agreed to grant a window cleaner licence to Mr Burns subject to public liability insurance being secured.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted)
Page 85 Agenda Item 3e MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 30 JUNE 2014
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robert G Councillor Robin Currie MacIntyre Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Alex McNaughton
Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Central Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Sergeant Quinn, Police Scotland
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors George Freeman, Roderick McCuish, James McQueen, Sandy Taylor and Richard Trail.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A PRIVATE H IRE DRIVER'S LICENCE (D MACDONALD, OBAN)
Sheila MacFadyen advised the Committee that the Applicant had intimated by telephone that he no longer required a private hire driver’s licence. The Applicant had been advised that his application could not be withdrawn until he had advised of his change in circumstances in writing. The Applicant asked that the application not be considered by the Committee today.
Decision
The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application and noted that it was the intention of the Applicant to withdraw his application.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted)
Page 86
This page is intentionally left blank Page 87 Agenda Item 3f MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 30 JUNE 2014
Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robert G Councillor Robin Currie MacIntyre Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Alex McNaughton
Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Central Governance Manager Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Sergeant Quinn, Police Scotland
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors George Freeman, Roderick McCuish, James McQueen, Sandy Taylor and Richard Trail.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A PRIVATE H IRE DRIVER'S LICENCE (D MACDONALD, OBAN)
Sheila MacFadyen advised the Committee that the Applicant had intimated by telephone that he no longer required a private hire driver’s licence. The Applicant had been advised that his application could not be withdrawn until he had advised of his change in circumstances in writing. The Applicant asked that the application not be considered by the Committee today.
Decision
The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application and noted that it was the intention of the Applicant to withdraw his application.
(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted)
Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank Page 89 Agenda Item 4
Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services
This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Creggans Windfarm at Land North East of Glenbarr, Kintyre Peninsula. ______
Our Reference No : 14/00132/S36
Applicant : Energy Consents and Deployment Unit
Proposal : Section 36 consultation relative to proposed Creggan Wind Farm
Site Address : Land North East of Glenbarr, Kintyre Peninsula ______
(A) Section 36 application consists of the following elements:
• Installation of 19 x 125m (blade tip) wind turbines (75m to hub and 99.8m rotor diameter each with an output of 3.3MW) with a total installed capacity of 62.7MW; • Transformer adjacent each turbine measuring 4m x 3m x 2.5m • Temporary crane hardstandings measuring 102m x 30m x 7m • Access from the A83 with 7.5km of new track (request for 50m micrositing) including 6 No. water crossing points • Erection of sub-station compound measuring 54m x 30m • Erection of 2 x 80m meteorological masts • Connection to the national grid at Carradale sub-station; • Works will extend over a 24 month period operating 07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 – 18:00 Saturday – Sunday • Phased restoration over the 24 month period; • Habitat mitigation plan including 15ha enhancement; • Off-site historic environment mitigation works. ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council as Planning Authority objects to the proposed wind farm development for the reasons detailed below and that the Scottish Government be notified accordingly ______
(C) CONSULTATIONS:
Area Roads Manager - Report dated 03/01/2014 The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions: • Site access to be from the A83 Kennacraig – Campbeltown Road; • Connection public road to measure 160m x 4.5m x 1.05m; • Junction layout to be agreed in writing with Argyll and Bute Council prior to any work starting on site;
Page 90
• Junction to be reduced in size to comply with standard detail drawing reference SD08/001 Revision A on completion of all construction works; • No vehicular access to the site from the C20 Barr Glen Road; • No work shall start on site until the applicant has provided the following information, for in writing by Argyll and Bute Council: - A Traffic Management Plan which should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases - A detailed method statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and equipment.
Public Protection Unit - Memo dated 10/02/2014 The Council’s Environmental Health officers have raised some concerns regarding the proposals in light of the method used for the assessment impact. They have requested further information from the applicant, which is still to be forthcoming.
Biodiversity Officer – Letter dated 13/02/2014 There are no objections from the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, however it is recommended that an operational monitoring system on species and habitat changes (surrounding the turbines and monitoring sites to be agreed) is drafted and agreed for implementation with the planning authority. The annual report should include any increase and or decrease in species activity, any collisions that may occur and evidence (both written and photographic) of changes in the habitat. This should be submitted to the planning authority for assessment.
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) – Letter dated 26/06/2014 WoSAS recommends that the Council object to the Section 36 consultation on the basis of unacceptable impact on the archaeological and historic assets in Barr Glen. The proposal will have an adverse impact on existing archaeological sites including several Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) and very likely impact on unrecorded remains. The glen is rich in archaeological deposits over several different periods which should be preserved in situ. The turbines will impact on the general experience of users of the glen.
With this in mind WoSAS has referenced the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) which states that development that will have an adverse effect on the setting of a SAM or the integrity of its setting should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is not considered that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in this instance.
The applicant has proposed to off-set this impact, which is acknowledged in their own ES, by site management and consolidation proposals for 5 churches in South Kintyre. WoSAS is of the view this would have an insufficient compensatory effect on the immediate cultural and geographical environment in the application area to enable approval of development with acknowledged historic environment impacts..
West Kintyre Community Council – Letter dated 19/01/2014 An opinion poll was carried out by WKCC of every adult in Glenbarr. Out of a total of 104 forms sent out, 61 were returned as follows:
• 56 objections • 3 no opinion • 1 in favour
Page 91
• 1 cannot comment
Therefore WKCC are of the opinion that the majority of residents are against this proposal. A further concern has been raised regarding the position of the access route off the A83.
The British Horse Society – e-mail sent 10/01/2014 The proposed area of land is well used by horse riders in particular those from Barrglen EC, we envisage no problems with the wind farm in fact we feel it may well be an opportunity to improve equestrian access. As long as the access tracks are of a suitable surface they will be welcomed by horse riders. Therefore it is of extreme importance that Burcote Wind considers horse riders during the construction and operation of this wind farm should it go ahead.
Highlands and Islands Airports Limited – e-mails sent 10/01/2014 & 20/05/2014 The proposal represents no safeguarding concerns for Campbeltown Airport but a red obstacle light will need to be fitted to the hub of some of the turbines.
The Joint Radio Company Limited – e-mail sent 12/02/2014, 22/05/2014 JRV does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.
Association of Salmon Fishery Boards – e-mail sent 09/01/2014 ASFB recommend that the guidelines developed on conjunction with Marine Scotland Science should be considered throughout the planning, construction, operation and decommissioning.
Civil Aviation Authority – e-mails sent 07/02/2014 & 04/06/2014 The CAA has confirmed that the relevant aviation consultees have been identified but offered no further comment other than should the proposal be approved by the Scottish Government then they will need to be informed.
Forestry Commission Scotland – e-mail sent 04/02/2014 The planting proposal is welcomed and in order to secure its creation the FC recommends that the creation of woodland habitat be condition of any approval. Any condition should include reference to the relevant standards.
Scottish Natural Heritage – Letter dated 06/06/2014 SNH provides the following advice in response to this proposal:
• We consider that the nature and scale of the proposal cannot be accommodated in this highly sensitive coastal location without significant and adverse landscape and visual effects. The development will have significant adverse effects on the character, key views and qualities of this valued coastal landscape. We consider this location to be inappropriate for wind farm development of this scale and advise that it may compromise the future pattern of wind farm development in the surrounding area;
• There is a likely significant effect on the Greenland white-fronted geese interest feature of the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area. Consequently, Scottish Minsters are required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest(s). We advise that, in our opinion, based on the Environmental Statement and our own commissioned research on the
Page 92
Kintyre population of Greenland white-fronted geese, the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site;
• A scheme of post-construction monitoring for Greenland white-fronted geese should be included;
• Further details are requested in relation to habitat management and species management plans to clarify details of the proposed mitigation.
BT Radio Network Protection – email dated 14/05/2014 No comment to make.
Historic Scotland – Letters dated 05/02/2014 & 23/05/2014 HS do not object to the proposal on the basis that the impacts on the scheduled ancient monuments in the glen are not sufficient to warrant an objection in the national interest. However, they agree with the findings in the applicants’ ES that there will be significant impacts on both the An Dunan and Blary dun, with minimal impacts on the Garvalt dun. Some mitigation is possible with regard to vegetation management, however the only way to suitably mitigate the direct adverse impacts would be to significantly alter or abandon the proposal.
The proposed off site mitigation on the five Kintyre churches is not considered appropriate. These churches are:
• St Columba's Church, rock-cut footprints & related remains, Southend (Index no. 3173) • Kilkivan, old parish church 150m W of High Kilkivan (Index no. 3683) • Kilchousland Church, church and burial ground (Index no. 3042) • Kilchenzie Church, church & tombstones (Index no. 260) • St John's Church, church, burial ground and carved stones, Killean (Index no. 3030)
These churches will only be indirectly affected and the proposed mitigation will not offset those impacts on those SAMs in the glen. However, the officer of a consolidation scheme and commitment to provide financial assistance per annum for 10-years is welcomed.
Letter of 23 rd May had no further comment to add.
Marine Scotland – Letter dated 04/06/2014 MSS-FL recommends the developer to: • Establish a water quality and macroinvertebrate baseline survey and include additional sampling sites in the baseline fish survey; • Establish a robust integrated water quality and fish monitoring programme during and after construction; • To draw up appropriate site specific mitigation measures; • Consider the potential impact of adjacent wind farms and the present proposal on fish and fisheries issues.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – e-mails sent 19/12/2014 & 15/05/2014 The proposed development does not conflict with the safeguarding proposal.
Page 93
Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society – e-mail dated 04/06/2014 No comment to make.
Scottish Water – Letters dated 04/02/2014 & 19/05/2014 The proposal will have no impact on Scottish Water’s infrastructure.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency – Letters dated 05/02/2014 & 21/05/2014 SEPA do not object to this proposal but request conditions relating to pollution prevent and environmental management, works to be undertaken in accordance with the Schedule of Environmental Commitments and that a site specific decommissioning and restoration environmental management plan is submitted, agreed and implemented prior to the commencement of decommissioning.
Furthermore, to ensure that any potential borrow pits are considered as part of a separate planning application a condition is attached preventing the creation of a borrow pit under this permission should it be granted.
The Crown Estate – Letter and e-mail dated 27/01/2014 & 28/05/2014 The interests of the Crown Estate are not affected by this proposal.
JMP on behalf of Transport Scotland – Letters dated 04/02/2014 & 05/06/2014 Transport Scotland is satisfied that the proposal will not give rise to adverse effects on the trunk road network.
Visit Scotland – 05/02/2014 Given the importance of Scottish tourism to the economy, and of Scotland’s landscape in attracting visitors to Scotland, VisitScotland would strongly recommend any potential detrimental impact of the proposed development on tourism - whether visually, environmentally and economically - be identified and considered in full. This includes when taking decisions over turbine height and numbers. VisitScotland would also urge consideration of the specific concerns raised above relating to the impact any perceived proliferation of developments may have on the local tourism industry, and therefore the local economy.
Ministry of Defence – Letter and e-mail dated 30/01/2014 & 07/02/2014 The report correctly identifies that the impact of wind turbines on aviation may include the potential impact that wind turbines have on the communications, navigation and surveillance infrastructure and also that turbines can cause a physical obstruction to aviation stakeholders which should be taken into account. If the proposed turbines are approved then there is a need to inform the MoD of the locations, heights and lighting status of the turbines and meteorological masts, the estimated and actual dates of construction and the maximum height of any construction equipment to be used, prior to the start of construction, to allow for the appropriate inclusion on Aviation Charts, for safety purposes.
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland – Email dated 06/01/2014 The MCS determined not to make comment.
Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) – Letter dated 05/02/2014 The SWT would like to raise concern with regard to the potential impact on peatland habitats. Although no proposed turbines are located on blanket bog, of the 19 turbines proposed, two turbines will be constructed in stands of wet modified bog and eight will be constructed in dry modified bog. Blanket bog is an Annex 1 Habitat of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 1992 (as amended) and is therefore significant in terms
Page 94
of its conservation value. In addition, wet modified bog and dry modified bog are also potential Annex 1 Habitats as degraded bogs and are in principle capable of regeneration, whether through natural regeneration or through specific targeted management.
0.55 hectares of wet modified bog and 2.51 hectares of dry modified bog would be permanently lost during the construction and operation of the proposed Creggan Wind Farm. The unmitigated impact is considered to be of high magnitude leading to an effect of ‘major – moderate’ significance for wet modified bog (Creggan Wind Farm EIA, 7.7.37). While the EIA includes measures to manage and restore 20 ha of wet modified bog and dry modified bog habitats, it also states that such mitigation is subject to landowner agreement, who requires the land to “remain a viable farming enterprise” (Creggan Wind Farm EIA 8.9.21). Before approval is granted, the applicant should confirm that mitigation will not conflict with the landowner’s interests so that the proposed objectives (mitigate for the loss of exiting bog habitats at a ratio of 3:1) can be met. Furthermore, a working group would need to be established (composed of the appropriate statutory agencies, experts in peatland restoration, landowners, environmental organisations and other stakeholders) to steer the project forward.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – Letter dated 20/06/2014 The RSPB does not object to this proposal but has concerns on the accuracy of some of the information submitted and the lack of detail of the proposed mitigation. Their comments relate especially to Greenland white fronted geese, a species of international conservation concern.
It is likely that should the proposal be approved that there would be a significant effect on Greenland white fronted goose which is the interest feature of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. As a result Scottish Ministers are required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment of the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SPA.
Numerous flights have been recorded of Greenland white fronts through the site and also pink-footed geese. The occurrence of the pink footed geese in such numbers and showing broadly similar behaviour to the white fronts is unprecedented in ornithological terms in Kintyre. This suggests that there is potential for misidentification and therefore underrepresentation by the ES of impacts on Greenland white-fronted geese. The cumulative collision risk assessment included in the ES is incomplete with not all wind farm proposals considered. It is also advised that impacts on the local sub-population are liable to be greater than assessed.
In addition to the above, the collision risk assessment does not allow for reduced avoidance rate of nocturnal flights or flights in periods of reduced visibility. It is possible, given the above, that the ES under represents the collision risk.
The ES generally lacks appropriate mitigation and question marks remain over the data used for various species including Hen Harrier, Black Grouse, Red-throated Diver and Golden Eagle.
Any approval should include conditions relating to habitat management. ______
Page 95
(D) REPRESENTATIONS:
As of 4 th April 2014 there had been 143 objections and 63 letters of support. This information was submitted to the planning authority by the Scottish Government who are the recipients of third party representations in this case. ______
(E) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002)
STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development STRAT DC 2: Development in Countryside Around Settlement STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside STRAT DC 7: Nature Conservation & Development Control STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control STRAT DC 9: Historic Environment & Development Control STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development
‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009)
LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 2: Development Impact on Biodiversity LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and Species LP ENV 7 - Development Impact on Trees/Woodland LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality LP ENV 12: Water Quality and Environment LP ENV 16: Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments LP ENV 17: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance LP ENV 19: Development Setting, Layout and Design LP BAD 1: Bad Neighbour Development LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes LP TRAN 7: Safeguarding of Airports
Note: The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
‘Argyll & Bute Proposed Local Development Plan’ (2013)
LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables SG LDP REN 1 Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development over 50 m high Wind Farm Policy Map
The consultation on the Proposed Local Development Plan ran from 4th February until 29th April 2013. The responses to this consultation have been reported to Council and all unresolved objections have been submitted to the
Page 96
Scottish Government who is to appoint Reporter(s) and hold an Examination of these issues. The Renewable Energy Policies and Wind Farm Policy Map are the subject of 24 representations on these matters, including SNH, the RSPB, various renewable energy companies and individuals. Given the fact that the relevant wind farm policy and map in the emergent LDP have been contested, they ought not to be accorded material weight in the determination of the application at this point in the plan-making process, given that there is no certainty that they will remain unaltered following Examination and Adoption of the plan.
(i) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
• Scottish Planning Policy (2014) • Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2012) • Planning Advice Note 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment (2013) • ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) • ‘Guidance on Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ SNH (2009). ______
(F) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______
(G) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______
(H) Reasons why planning authority should object to this Section 36 application:
1. The application site is located on the northern side of Barr Glen which constitutes one of the ‘hidden glens’ of the Kintyre peninsula. The proposed wind turbines would be prominent in short-range views from the A83, from the minor road through the glen and from the vicinity of the settlement of Glenbarr. They would frequently skyline in available views and by virtue of their scale and number would be prominent visually, detracting from the composition of elements which contribute to the scenic quality of the surrounding area. The areas of expected visibility coincide with more frequented areas where sensitive receptors tend to be concentrated, including the coast, settlement, historic environment and recreation assets, and extend their influence to hilltops, the Kintyre Way, and road and ferry routes, all which have value as a recreational and tourism resource. At 125m in height, the turbines proposed would dominate the glen, impinging inappropriately on the setting of and views from the small scale settled ‘Rocky Mosaic’ landscape character type, with significant adverse consequences for the visual qualities of the Kintyre coast APQ, which has been designated as a scenic resource of regional value. As well as casting an immediate effect over the small scale landscape of the glen and the settled coast of Kintyre, the influence of the wind turbines would also extend to the island of Gigha and more distant coastlines and seascapes. The proposal is not be in accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) which specifically advises that turbine development should be kept off the sensitive ridges of Barr Glen. It would not share the locational advantages of consented wind turbine developments in Kintyre which have been carefully sited in order to exploit the topographical advantages of upland spine locations
Page 97
inland, where they shed comparatively little influence upon those more settled and sensitive coastal landscapes of the peninsula, which contribute to the attraction of this part Argyll as a tourism destination. Although it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of these effects upon the tourism resource, development which compromises the visual and scenic qualities of the landscape and which impinges upon historic environment assets is likely to compromise the value of the wider area for tourism, given that Argyll is heavily reliant upon its natural, scenic and historic qualities in continuing to attract visitors. The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of climate change related commitments. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 6 Development in Very Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; and Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2009) and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009), and does not accord with the guidance published by the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009).
2. Barr Glen is already subject to the influence of wind turbine development as a consequence of the presence of Beinn an Tuirc I and II wind farms which are visible on elevated land beyond the head of the glen and there is also an as yet unimplemented permission on the south-eastern slopes for 3 No. 100m turbines at Auchadaduie. The proposal would introduce the presence of turbines along the northern side of the glen, where by virtue of their number, location, scale and movement they would constitute inappropriately conspicuous development contrary to the interests of the maintenance of landscape character and the protection of visual amenity, which would not conform with the approach advocated in the Council’s approved ‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’, which seeks to build upon the locational advantages of the upland spine interior of the peninsula in accommodating further large scale turbine development, in order to avoid inappropriate influence being exerted upon more sensitive coastal landscapes, transport routes and communities. The development would be separate from the existing focus of wind energy development on the spine of Kintyre, where it would cast an unwelcome additional influence over the glen, which is sensitive to this scale of development, and where it would be more exposed to receptors, thereby exerting a disproportionate influence in terms of the experience of simultaneous and sequential views in conjunction with existing wind turbines. It would therefore give rise to unwelcome cumulative impacts upon the glen by virtue of its association with Beinn and Tuirc windfarm and would contribute to the visual encirclement of the glen by wind turbines having regard to the permission already granted for large scale wind turbines at Auchadaduie. The foregoing environmental considerations are of such magnitude that they cannot be reasonably offset by the projected benefits which a development of this scale would make to the achievement of climate change related commitments. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 6 Development in Very Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2009) and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009) and with the guidance published by
Page 98
the Council in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Guidance on Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009).
3. The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on existing archaeological sites including several Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) and very likely impact on unrecorded remains ,and indeed the applicants’ ES acknowledges the harmful impact on the archaeological features and assets of the Glen. The glen is rich in archaeological deposits over several different periods which should be preserved in situ. The turbines will impact on the general experience of the historic environment of the glen and will impose themselves inappropriately upon the landscape settings of historic environment assets. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states that ‘ Where there is potential for a proposed development to have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or on the integrity of its setting, permission should only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances’ . This is echoed in policy LP ENV 16 (Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments) of the adopted Local Plan. It is not considered that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in this instance.
The applicant has advanced proposals to off-set the adverse impact acknowledged in their own ES, by the site management and consolidation of five churches in South Kintyre. Only one of these churches is within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the proposed wind farm, with the others located further afield at Machrihanish, Campbeltown and Southend. It is considered that this approach would have an insufficient compensatory effect on the immediate cultural and geographical environment in the application area given that only one of these sites would be influenced by the presence of the development and would not overcome the shortcomings of the proposal in respect of historic environment interests within and surrounding Barr Glen. With this in mind the proposal is not consistent with Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Policy STRAT DC 9 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2009) or Policies LP ENV 1, LP ENV 16 and LP ENV 17 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009) ______
Author of Report: David Love Date: 15/07/2014
Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 17.07.2014
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Page 99
APPENDIX A - PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME
This proposal is for a wind farm with an installed capacity in excess of 50MW . The consequence of this is that proposals of this scale are regarded as electricity generating stations, for which the appropriate consenting process is via Section 36 of the Electricty Act 1989 and which requires project authorisation to be given by the Scottish Ministers. Any ministerial authorisation given would include a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority.
The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry if they are minded to approve the development. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.
In the event that a consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken in the matter.
The conclusion of this report is to recommend that objection be raised to this proposal on landscape, visual, cumulative impact and historic environment grounds. It is not necessary at this point in the process to recommend conditions in the event that the project is authorised by the Scottish Ministers, for if they are minded to approve the project regardless of objection by the planning authority, there would be opportunity to suggest appropriate conditions as part of the process of Public Local Inquiry which would require to be convened in those circumstances.
B. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY & WIND FARM PROPOSALS MAP
As this proposal is over 20MW, the site is subject to spatial zoning for wind farm development by the Local Plan Wind Farm Proposals Map. As per this map this site is within a ‘Potentially Constrained Area’. The proposal is located within a mixture of Countryside Around Settlement, Rural Opportunity Area, Sensitive Countryside and Very Sensitive Countryside as delineated by the Local Plan Proposals Maps for North Kintyre.
The access from the public road is located within CAS and ROA; the internal access tracks are located in a combination of Sensitive Countryside; Very Sensitive Countryside and Rural Opportunity Area; and the turbines, crane hardstandings, and all other ancillary development will be located in a combination of Sensitive and Very Sensitive Countryside,
Page 100
where they are subject to the effect of Structure Plan Policies STRAT DC 2: Development in Countryside Around Settlement, STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas, STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside and STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside.
In special cases both Policy STRAT DC 4 and STRAT DC 5 state that development in the open countryside and ‘medium or large scale’ development may be supported if it accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The proposal constitutes ‘large scale’ development in the open countryside. However, it is not normal practice for an ACE to be undertaken for a wind farm which has been subject to an Environmental Statement (where consideration of alternatives is required as part of the EIA process).
Policies STRAT DC 2, STRAT DC 4, STRAT DC 5 and STRAT DC 6 also require proposals to be consistent with all other Development Plan Policies. Those relevant to this case are listed in Section E above. Of these, Policy LP REN 1 is applicable to commercial wind farm developments and this provides for a criteria based assessment founded on matters cited in Scottish government policy along with the associated spatial guidance given in the Wind Farm Policy Map. Those matters requiring assessment are considered in the sections below. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal will integrate sympathetically with the landscape, without giving rise to adverse consequences for landscape character and visual amenity of its surroundings and without impinging unacceptably on the historic environment assets in the locality. It is considered that this proposal does not satisfy development plan policy or associated guidance in respect of wind farm development for the reasons stated in Section (H) above.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the SPP (2014); Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms ; Policies STRAT DC 2: Development in Countryside Around Settlement; STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside and STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policy LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
C. LOCATION, NATURE & DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposal is for the erection of a 19 No. turbine wind farm with ancillary development on agricultural land north of the C20 Barr Glen road. The site lies approximately 1 km north east of the village of Glenbarr. It is most readily appreciated from the A83 and the public road along the length of the glen. Each wind turbine would have an electrical generation capacity of 3.3MW, providing a total maximum generating capacity of 62.7MW. The maximum hub height of the turbines would be 75m, with a rotor diameter of 99.8m, producing an overall height to the vertical blade tip of 125m.
The following elements are included in the planning application:
• Nineteen three bladed horizontal axis turbines with associated external transformers and switchgear; • Creation of new access from the A83, north of Glenbarr village to the south of the primary school; • Formation of internal access tracks, • The erection of a sub-station compound and control building, and installation of underground cabling;
Page 101
• Crane hard-standing areas and a construction compound • Connection to the national grid at Carradale is also proposed.
The general design of the turbines and ancillary structures follows current wind energy practice. The proposed sub-station compound measures some 54m x 30m. The application details do not include for the site-specific design of the sub-station but provide generic details only. Subject to appropriate detailing and finish a control building in the location suggested could integrate appropriately with the landscape, taking the appearance of a traditional agricultural building.
Whilst the design of the proposal is appropriate for a wind farm of this scale, its intended location is not due to the adverse impacts detailed in this report, and therefore in terms of the overall sustainability of the proposal, it is considered that it would have unacceptably adverse landscape, visual, and cumulative impacts upon the receiving environment.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policy STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan; and, Policies LP ENV 1: Development Impact on the General Environment and LP ENV 19: Development Setting, Layout & Design of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
D. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER & LANDSCAPE IMPACT
Landscape impacts may be considered in terms of the disturbance, damage or loss of individual features of landscape character, such as streams, woodlands and open moorland. Landscape character is a fundamental starting point for assessing whether a landscape is suitable for assimilating wind energy development successfully, without giving rise to unacceptable impacts upon the countryside.
According to the Argyll and the Firth of Clyde Assessment (SNH 1996) the site is located within the ‘Upland Forest Moor Mosaic’ Landscape Character Type (as detailed in the ES).
Landscape Character
Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the nature and scale of the proposal cannot be accommodated in this highly sensitive coastal location due to the number, height and rotation of the turbines, without significant and adverse effects upon landscape character. Previously consented wind farm development which is largely concentrated within moorland or forested areas related to the spine of Kintyre, where it has the locational advantage of being removed from sensitive landscapes and receptors, and benefits from topographical screening in respect of transport corridors, settled areas and historic environment and tourism assets, all of which tend to be associated with the lower lying coastal fringe of the peninsula and the handful of glens which penetrate into the interior. This large scale development occupies agricultural land on the flanks of Barr Glen where the scale of development proposed would impinge unacceptably on smaller scale landscapes, sites of historical importance, and residential properties all of which are associated with this glen. In particular the scale of the turbines relative to the height of the land is disproportionate and would have a diminishing influence on the apparent scale of the land enclosing and defining the glen. The development would also influence regularly frequented locations to the west, including the important A83 coastal route, where it would have significant adverse effects on the character, key views and qualities of a valued coastal landscape. Given that wind turbine development has previously been approved in locations where it is visible at the head of the glen and along the southern ridge of the glen the addition of turbines along the
Page 102
northern side would lead to an encirclement of the glen by turbines and would overwhelm its capacity to absorb this type of development successfully leading to a situation where the glen would become characterised by wind power development. SNH consider that in principle this location to be inappropriate for wind farm development of this scale and advise that if consented it would have a disproportionate impact which may compromise the ability of the wider area to absorb further wind farm development. This approach is endorsed by officers and is consistent with the advice given in the Council’s ‘Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012) ’ which guards against this scale of development in sensitive smaller scale landscapes such as Barr Glen.
Scottish Natural Heritage has confined its response to one of advice in its consideration of the application, given the absence of significant impacts on national interests. Members will be aware of SNH’s position that it will now only object to developments where national interests are significantly prejudiced. The lack of an objection ought therefore not to be construed as indicating that they are in any way content with the proposal. Indeed it is evident form their response that they do not regard this as an acceptable form of development in terms of its landscape, visual and cumulative impact and that their advice to the Council is to resist the proposal on the grounds of conflict with theses interests.
The proposal is on the edge of hills above Barr Glen on the defining skyline that makes it prominent from the Rocky Mosaic character type. Although located in the ‘Upper Forest Moor Mosaic’ LCT, it impinges on the adjacent small scale and settled coast and glen ‘Rocky Mosaic’ LCT which is particularly sensitive to inappropriately scaled development on the margins of other landscape character types as this will shed influence over considerable distances. The scale of the proposal will dominate the landscape in which it is sited. It will dominate the scale of the glen on the western edge of the UFMM (hills in this location rising to c200m AOD) and overwhelm the scale of settlement, historic environment features and other landscape features in the glen all of which are components of landscape character.
The proposal is contrary to SNH’s published Siting and Design guidance, which recommends that wind turbines should be a third or less the height of the hill on which they stand, so as to avoid being disproportionate to their landscape context and having the apparent effect of diminishing the scale of the landform to the detriment of landscape character. The turbines proposed would be approximately half the height of the land on which they are to be sited which alters the perception of scale. The small scale of the settlement in close proximity to these large turbines provides a ready scale reference, emphasising their landscape impact, and the disproportionate contribution their presence would make to the overall impact of wind power development throughout Kintyre. SNH considers that overall the proposal will have a disproportionate adverse effect on character, landscape experience and visual amenity, resulting in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts for both residents and visitors to the area.
Accordance with recommendations in the ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’
The Council’s WECS seeks to build upon the locational advantages of consented sites relating to the spine of Kintyre, where they are generally situated away from centres of population and in a large simple landscape that can more readily assimilate large scale turbines without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on more sensitive and intimate landscape character types and locations which are more routinely frequented by people. In contrast to the application proposal, Beinn An Tuirc I and II wind farms, which influence the head of the glen, are clearly related to the unoccupied and expansive interior of the peninsula and are generally only experienced at a distance. By virtue of their lesser scale
Page 103
and their separation distance they exert minimal impact on the coast and the A83 and are well removed from occupied properties. Although three turbines have been consented closer to the coast at Auchadaduie this is a much smaller project than that proposed in this case, and is better related to the forestry which is a key component in the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type.
The proposal is not in accordance with the recommendations of the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) which considers the smaller scale and settled Barr Glen to be sensitive to larger typologies sited on containing hills and ridges with provide immediate skylines.
It is the view of both officers and SNH that the Creggan wind farm proposal is not set well back into the interior but intrudes into the valley where the uplands are transected by the glen. In this location it would impinge on the setting and views from the more sensitive Rocky Mosaic LCT with significant adverse impact in relation to both this the small settled glen and parts of the west coast of Kintyre.
Scale, layout and design
The proposal does not adhere to the design principles detailed in SNH’s guidance: ‘Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (2009) . The large scale of the turbines, the number of turbines proposed and their layout and design secure a poor landscape fit which exacerbates the locational shortcomings of the site, resulting in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. This is clearly illustrated in some of the visualisations as represented from the coast by Viewpoint 8 (Bellochantuy Bay) and from the floor of the glen at Viewpoint 1 (Auchadaduie). Visualisations indicate that the proposal does not relate well to the scale of the receiving hill, or the scale and character of lower farmed and settled areas, or its proximity to the coast and the therefore does not therefore relate to the key landscape characteristics.
The relatively small scale and often intimate landscapes of Argyll do not lend themselves to very large turbines, other than in locations where they are well removed from sensitive receptors and smaller scale landscape character types, particularly coastal and other scenic locations. SNH’s guidance: ‘Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ recommends that development should be “of minor vertical scale in relation to the key features of the landscape (typically less than one third)’. In this case Creggans is greater than half the height of the hill on which it is sited. Given the relatively close range at which the site can be experienced (from the A83 and Barr Glenn) and its proximity to adjacent smaller scale and more sensitive landscape character types, large scale turbine development which is disproportionate to and which reduces the apparent scale of the landscape is inappropriate and harmful to the character of the landscape within which it is located, as well as to that of adjacent landscape character types. The development makes little concession to the proximity of settlement (small houses/farm buildings) which provides ready scale references when seen in the context of large turbines, emphasising their disproportionate scale.
The development fails to secure an appropriate landscape fit, has a disproportionate impact upon smaller scale more sensitive landscapes, sensitive tourist routes and local settlement.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that this proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside, STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive
Page 104
Countryside; STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality and LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.
E. VISUAL IMPACT
Visual impact relates to the proposal’s visibility and its impacts on views, as experienced by people. In determining the proposal’s visual impact, the layout of the wind farm has been assessed from key representative viewpoints. Visually sensitive viewpoints include those where there are views to, or from, designated landscapes; however, sensitivity is not confined to designated interests. Visually sensitive viewpoints can include those which are frequently visited by people (such as well-used transport corridors, tourist roads, or picnic spots), settlements where people live, other inhabited buildings or viewpoints which have a landscape value that people appreciate (and which they might visit for recreational pursuits or areas for hill walking, cycling or education).
In order to assess the visual impact, the developer has agreed to appraise a series of viewpoints identified to reflect the sensitivity of receptors. These are located relative to local settlements, transportation corridors, places of recreational/tourism value and known popular viewpoints. It is accepted that photomontages and other visual information can only give an indication of the relative scale of the proposals in relation to the surrounding landscape. There is no disguising the visual impact of the proposal, as 125 metre tall structures will be clearly seen in the surrounding area.
List of Viewpoints assessed
1) Auchadaduie 2) Glenbarr War Memorial (residential) 3) Edge of Glenbarr (residential) 4) Barlea Farm (residential) 5) A’Chleit Church (residential) 6) Beinn Bhreac, Kintyre 7) Coastal Waters 8) Bellochantuy Bay (picnic area) (residential) 9) Tayinloan Ferry Jetty 10) Gigha Ferry Route 11) Rhunahaorine Point (beach) 12) South Pier, Gigha (residential) 13) Sgreadan Hill, Kintyre 14) Machrihanish (car park) (residential) 15) Kennacraig to Port Ellen Ferry 16) Mullach Buidhe, Isle of Arran 17) Beinn Ghuilean, Kintyre 18) Port Mor, Knapdale 19) Kennacraig to Port Askaig Ferry
Both SNH and officers consider Creggans to be inappropriately situated close to the edge of the upland area (UFMM) and where it would give rise to a greater degree of visual intrusion than consented developments on the spine of the peninsula, particularly in terms
Page 105
of short range views from Barr Glenn. Although there is some screening by surrounding landform in the wider landscape, due to the height of the turbines they would protrude above ridges in views from the A83, and would be prominent features in available views from the settlement of Glennbarr and the scattered properties throughout the glen. The areas of visibility coincide with more frequented areas where sensitive receptors are concentrated e.g. the coast, settlement, recreation areas, hilltops, the Kintyre Way, and road and ferry routes.
SNH has identified significant adverse impact from a range of key views/locations including:
- Barr Glen area as represented by viewpoint 3 (edge of Glen Barr)
- Settlement including Glenbarr area and residential properties in close proximity to the site (represented by, for example viewpoint 1 Auchadaduie, viewpoint 4 Barlea Farm)
- The coast including key recreation areas/tourist destinations (represented by. viewpoint 8 Bellochantuy Bay and viewpoint 5 A’Chelit Church area for example);
- Key routes in close proximity including the Gigha ferry route (as represented by viewpoint 10), A83 (as illustrated by, for example, viewpoint 2 Glenbarr War Memorial); the approach to Glenbarr Abbey (as illustrated by wireline appendix figure 6.2a and 6.2b); minor roads in close proximity and specific views from the Kintyre Way (as represented by viewpoint 11 Rhunahaorine Point);
- Hilltop views (represented by viewpoint 6 Beinn Bhreac and viewpoint 13 Sgreadan Hill);
- Offshore, including Isle of Gigha (as represented by viewpoint 12), the Sound of Gigha (as represented by viewpoint 10) and the water based views off the west coast of Kintyre in close proximity (as represented by viewpoint 7).
As well as the turbines and ancillary structures, the proposal also requires the formation of a new access from land north of Glenbarr village and south of the primary school. This access will serve 7.5km of access tracks. The access works have not attracted an objection or concerns from the trunk roads authority or the Council’s Area Roads Officer. The applicant has requested a micro-siting allowance of 50m, however, this is considered excessive and should the proposal be approved then this ought to be conditioned out. Whilst the adverse effects of these works will be localised and experienced by road users and residents of Glen Barr, it is considered that they will create an additional and unnecessary visual impact.
Recreation
Visitors and residents value Kintyre and Gigha for their beaches and panoramic coastal views to adjacent coasts, islands and mountains and for their sense of seclusion. In the west coast of Kintyre area, this combination of landscape and seascape features are provide recreational opportunities, for example, the sandy beaches, the Kintyre Way, and water based activities. The Sound of Gigha is a popular sailing route, including the islands ferry route.
The proposed development would be frequently clearly visible in the context of these recreational opportunities, where it location and scale would impinge on the amenity currently enjoyed by tourism/recreation receptors. The appearance of the wind farm will vary from full turbines visible along the length of the coastline, reducing to the blades of the turbines moving on the skyline; and varying between back clothed and skylined depending
Page 106
upon the particular location of the receptor. Overall the presence of the development will intrude in views in a manner which will detract from the recreational experience of the landscape.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside Policy; STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP ENV 9: Development Impact on National Scenic Areas; LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the siting of windfarms.
F. CUMULATIVE IMPACT
Cumulative impact is difficult to assess but can have significant land use planning implications, particularly in relation to noise, visual, aviation, landscape, ecological, and hydrological impacts. The acceptability of proposals depends on the nature and character of the location, and sensitive visual receptors, wildlife species, and habitats. The Cumulative Impact Assessment considers other existing or approved wind energy developments and those subject to a scoping opinion (where information about the development was available). The principal cumulative concerns in respect of this proposal would be in terms of landscape and visual effects.
Existing wind farm development is a key characteristic of the UFMM character type which occurs on the spine of Kintyre. These developments are well sited and as a result can be accommodated in the landscape without significantly detracting from the character, experience and enjoyment of the peninsula.
SNH consider that the addition of the proposed development to the UFMM on the outer edge of the uplands of the Kintyre spine (which has a different character and context to the interior) is likely to result in the significant adverse cumulative effects on landscape character. In this location, the proposed development will erode the established pattern of wind farm developments in the upland core. It would be set apart from development on the interior of the peninsula, introducing large scale turbines into a more sensitive part of the peninsula. It would also impact on smaller scale landscapes lying in close proximity, unlike existing wind farm development sited within the spine of the peninsula.
SNH consider that there will be significant adverse cumulative visual impacts from the following locations:
- Sequential views from key routes e.g. Gigha fetrry route and sections of the A83 and Kintyre Way;
- Hilltops as represented by cumulative viewpoint CVP 2 Beinn Bhreac;
- From offshore/parts of the coast as represented by CVP 3 South Pier Gigha, and CVP 1 Edge of Glenbarr. There is likely to be concentrated band of turbines appearing in views from Gigha/offshore particularly when seen in combination with Beinn an Tuirc 1 and 2, Auchadaduie and Tangy. Other schemes at advanced scoping stage including Blary Hill (south side of Barr Glen), proposed Tangy 3 (proposed up-powering) and Beinn an Tuirc
Page 107
3, will exacerbate these effects, potentially resulting in visual coalescence of the proposed development with aforementioned developments in views from Gigha/offshore.
The LWECS highlights these potential adverse cumulative effects as a key issue:
“Larger turbines and/or more extensive wind farm developments sited on the edge hills and slopes of the Kintyre uplands where they would be likely to increase landscape and visual impacts on the settled coastal edge of Kintyre and on views from Arran and Gigha and would also undermine the established pattern of wind farm developments associated with the interior of these uplands…”.
The study also advises that “Potential cumulative effects with the existing and consented wind farm developments of Allt Dearg, Deucheran Hill, Tangy and Beinn an Tuirc wind farms seen sequentially from the A83 and together (in various combinations) in views from Arran and Gigha” could constrain development.
In combination with Beinn an Tuirc I and II and Auchadaduie, the proposal by virtue of its scale and the height of turbines and its imposing appearance would contribute to the encirclement of the glen by wind turbines, undermining its established character and its landscape qualities in a manner which would be to the detriment of landscape character. It would also impose itself in the context of west Kintyre, the A83 and coastal landscapes to a point where it would make a disproportionate contribution to the overall presence of wind farm development in Kintyre
Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of cumulative effects the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; STRAT DC 4: Development in Rural Opportunity Areas; STRAT DC 5: Development in Sensitive Countryside Policy; STRAT DC 6: Development in Very Sensitive Countryside; STRAT DC 8: Landscape & Development Control; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
G. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
Habitats
The habitats recorded in the development footprint are generally of limited ecological value due to their small scale and age category. Should the applicant receive consent then they intend to provide an enhancement, management and restoration of flush and bog habitats, and planting of 15ha of scrub/woodland, which collectively will mitigate for the identified loss of 6.52ha bog and flush habitat on the site and provide a habitat mosaic of greater ecological and biodiversity value than currently present. Overall the proposal will have a negligible adverse impact on habitats and biodiversity.
Mammals
Otter - The developer did not record any signs of otter within 500m of any construction area within the site. However, given the significant amount of time between the base line surveys and possible commencement of works and subsequent decommissioning the
Page 108
applicant is proposing pre-start and pre-decommissioning surveys to establish the presence or otherwise of otters. This will then feed into the CDEMP.
Bats - The ES identified a possible four species of bats utilising the site and wider study area. SNH consider that the proposal broadly follows good practice guidance. The highest level of recorded bat activity was nearest T15 which is some 50m from existing potential habitat; however a micro siting allowance of 50m would potentially place it much closer to potential habitat than proposed. T15 should remain a minimum of 50m from the woodland edge.
Advice provided by SNH in relation to mammals would be required to be incorporated into relevant planning conditions in the event of permission being granted.
Freshwater Fish
The ES indicates that tributaries to the Barr Water are suitable for Atlantic Salmon and Brown Trout. The applicant proposes various mitigation measures including pre- commencement surveys by a SQE that will form part of the CEMP.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT DC 7: Nature Conservation & Development Control of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines, LP ENV 2: Development Impact on Biodiversity and LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and Species of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
H. ORNITHOLOGICAL IMPACT
Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that the proposal could have a likely significant effect on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and that therefore a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ under the Habitats Regulations should be undertaken by Scottish Ministers as part of the determination of this proposal. The Kintyre Goose Roosts RAMSAR site and Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI may also be affected but any concerns about the interests of these designations are fully addressed as part of SNH’s considerations of the European sites.
SNH also advise that a programme of post-construction monitoring of Greenland white- fronted geese is conducted. It is recommended that vantage point surveys and carcass searches are carried out in years 1, 2, 3, 10 and 15 of the wind farm operation. This will provide further information and insight for Greenland white-fronted geese and wind farms in a Scottish context.
SNH also provide advice on other bird interests which could be affected by the proposal.
Hen Harrier For hen harriers SNH advise that there needs to be further details of the proposed mitigation as reducing disturbance effects through the funding of conservation projects is somewhat vague. The methods for conducting this and what can be achieved is not clear and so it recommended that Scottish Ministers ask for further details.
Red Throated Diver The applicants’ survey works identified two breeding locations and several flights lines for red throated divers. It is noted that this information was collected on an ad hoc basis and did not follow the recommended SNH guidance fir surveying breeding red throated divers.
Page 109
However, if red throated divers had been commuting over the site regularly then this would have been recorded as part of the standard vantage point surveys. Therefore, despite the shortcomings in the data it is accepted that flight activity over the site is low.
Black Grouse SNH note that a collision risk assessment was not carried out because flight height distribution patterns lie below the potential collision height (PCH). However, the ES shows that 37% of the total recorded flight time was at PCH. Black Grouse do typically flight at heights below PCH and therefore it is unusual to calculation collision risk for this species. However, despite this it has been advised that consideration should have been given to potential barrier effects caused by the proposal.
Pink-footed Geese The collision risk window for pink-footed geese is much larger than the window used for Greenland white-fronted geese. The reason for this is not clear considering the flight paths on figure 8.4a appear similar.
Whooper Swan SNH has advised that there were no whooper swan flights through the area of turbines on the proposed development, and just one through the development site. This suggests that there were no flights in the risk window and yet the collision risk assessment was calculated using a total of five recorded flights. The applicant has not clarified whether or not this is an error or just missing information.
The RSPB do not object to this proposal but do raise concerns on the accuracy of some of the information submitted and the lack of detail of the proposed mitigation. Their comments relate especially to Greenland white-fronted goose. In their opinion the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on Greenland white-fronted geese, in the context of the Kintyre Goose Roots SPA. Consequently, RSPB also concludes that an ‘appropriate assessment’ shuld be carried out by Scottish Ministers to determine the effects of the project on the integrity of the SPA. The ES recorded numerous flights of both Greenland white-fronted and Pink-footed geese. The occurrence of pink-footed geese in such numbers and showing broadly similar behaviour to the white-fronted is unprecedented in ornithological terms in Kintyre. This suggests that there is potential for misidentification and therefore underrepresentation by the ES of impacts on Greenland white-fronted geese. The cumulative collision risk assessment included in the ES is incomplete with not all windfarm proposals considered. RSPB advise that impacts on the local sub-population are liable to be greater than assessed and it is impacts such as this that conservation management for the species seeks to avoid.
The collision risk assessment does not allow for reduced avoidance rate of nocturnal flights or flights in periods of reduced visibility. Nocturnal usage is a particular issues for Greenland white-fronted geese and could be substantially more than considered given that as the species is less limited to tidal and moon cycles than other goose species. Any impact on this population would be of serious concern given its current status and should be considered in light of the international agreement to protect the species.
Despite the above concerns, RSPB do not object to the proposal but suggest that a condition is attached to any permission to reduce disturbance impacts and ensure that a full Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is agreed prior to the commencement of works. Furthermore, RSPB advise that a condition or legal agreement is applied to secure the future positive management of the agricultural feeding grounds and roost sites for Greenland white-fronted goose. This should include off-site management guided by
Page 110
internal research. Detailed, post construction monitoring (including carcass searches) on an annual basis for the life time of the wind farm.
In light of the above it is considered that there are no issues of significance raised by the proposal which would warrant refusal of the application on ornithological grounds.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ornithological interests, with the provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT DC 7: Nature Conservation & Development Control of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP ENV 2: Development Impact on Biodiversity, LP ENV 6: Development Impact on Habitats and Species and LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
I. HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACT
With regard to pollution prevention and environmental management, SEPA requests that a condition is attached to any grant of planning permission requiring a Construction Environmental Management Document to be agreed prior to the commencement of development and implemented in full. A condition to this effect would be required in the event of permission being granted.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of hydrology and hydrogeological impact the proposal is consistent with the provisions of: Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policy LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
J. MANAGEMENT OF PEAT/SOIL
SEPA has not raised any concerns regarding the management of peat/soil. They are keen however for the submission of an Environmental Management Plan at least 2-months prior to the commencement of works. This would cover issues such as the management of soils, surface water management etc.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of ground conditions the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policy LP REN 1 – Wind Farms and Wind Turbines of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.
K. BORROW PITS
The ES states that no borrow pits are proposed as part of the proposal and that all aggregate required for construction of the wind farm would be imported to the site.
L. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
Historic Scotland do not object to the proposal on the basis that the impacts on the scheduled ancient monuments in the glen are not in their view sufficient to warrant an objection in the national interest. However, they agree with the findings in the applicants’
Page 111
ES that there will be significant impacts on both the An Dunan and Blary duns, but minimal impacts on the Garvalt dun. Some mitigation is possible with regard to vegetation management however the only way to suitably mitigate the direct adverse impacts would be to significantly alter or abandon the proposal.
The proposed off site mitigation in respect of the five Kintyre churches listed below is not considered appropriate or sufficient to overcome the historic environment shortcomings of the proposal:
• St Columba's Church, rock-cut footprints & related remains, Southend (Index no. 3173) • Kilkivan, old parish church 150m W of High Kilkivan (Index no. 3683) • Kilchousland Church, church and burial ground (Index no. 3042) • Kilchenzie Church, church & tombstones (Index no. 260) • St John's Church, church, burial ground and carved stones, Killean (Index no. 3030)
These churches will only be indirectly affected and the proposed mitigation will not offset the magnitude of the impacts foreseen on the SAMs in the glen. However Historic Scotland notes that the offer of a consolidation scheme and commitment to provide financial assistance per annum for 10-years is nonetheless welcomed.
The West of Scotland Archaeology Service recommends that the Council should object to the proposal on the basis of unacceptable impact on the archaeological and historic assets in Barr Glen. The proposal will have an adverse impact on existing archaeological sites including several Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) and very likely impact on unrecorded remains. The glen is rich in archaeological deposits over several different periods and should be preserved in situ. The turbines will impact on the general experience of users of the glen and their appreciation of the historic environment.
With this in mind WoSAS has pointed to the advice given in Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) that states that development that will have an adverse effect on the setting of a SAM or the integrity of its setting should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is not considered that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in this instance, nor that the mitigation package advance by the applicants provides sufficient compensatory effect on the immediate cultural and geographical environment around the proposed development site.
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Policies STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development and STRAT DC 9: Historic Environment & Development Control of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and LP ENV 13a: Development Impact on Listed Buildings LP ENV 14; LP ENV 16: Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; LP ENV 17: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
M. TOURISM IMPACT
The degree to which wind turbines influence the decision as to whether tourists should visit or return to an area, is open to debate. In dismissing an appeal for a windfarm at Corlarach in Cowal, the Reporter was persuaded that resource based tourism founded partly on landscape and scenery was important to Argyll and Bute, in the context of a local economy which is heavily dependent upon the tourism sector and its associated employment.
Page 112
Accordingly, development with significantly adverse landscape impacts has been recognised as having potential to devalue the attraction of Argyll as a tourism destination.
Opinions and attitudes towards wind farms have been the subject of several public opinion surveys over the past 20 years. In particular, the report of the Sustainable Development Commission Wind Power in the UK (2005) summarises the findings of 24 surveys conducted between 1992 and 2005, and reports that across these studies, an average of 80% of respondents support the development of wind energy technologies. The ES also refers to the 2003 MORI survey undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) which concludes that people were three times more likely to say they felt their local wind farm had a positive impact on the area (20%) than as they were to say it had a negative impact (7%). People living within 5 km of the local wind farm held the most positive views with 45% saying they thought the overall impact had been positive and only 6% saying they thought it had been negative.
In a more recent appeal decision (dismissed 11 th July 2013), against refusal of a single wind turbine (84m to blade tip) on land north-east of Redesdale House, Skipness, the Reporter made a cogent point with regard to reference made by the appellant to research on the relationship of wind farms and tourism. He took the view that available surveys and research relate to a pattern of wind farm development which has come about under a fully developed planning system. They provide no evidence of the effect on tourists (and the tourism industry) had there been no such system in operation, or if it had been operated less carefully – for example by permitting an obtrusive turbine in a fine landscape traversed by important tourist routes. The Reporter therefore gave little weight in deciding the appeal to the conclusions of surveys referred to by the appellant in support of his proposal.
What is clear, is that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality and tourism assets have less potential to influence the decisions of those who might prove sensitive to developments than those forms of wind power development which are more prominently sited and of larger scale, such that they are less readily capable of assimilation in their landscape setting.
There are a number of visitor attractions subject to the influence of the proposal: the Kintyre Way – a long distance walking route spanning 140 km across Kintyre; National Cycle Route 78 from Oban to Campbeltown, historical sites such as Glen Barr Abbey; along with Hotels, Bed and Breakfasts and holiday cottages across the area.
Whilst it is not possible to be conclusive about the extent of these impacts, or to quantify them in a manner which would warrant a specific reason for refusal based upon conflict with tourism economy interests, it is reasonable to conclude that a proposal which will impinge on important views and the landscape and scenic qualities of an area which is valued as a recreational and tourism resource, will not be in the interests of the tourism economy.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Policies STRAT SI 1: Sustainable Development; Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP ENV 10: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality; LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
Page 113
N. NOISE & AIR QUALITY
Technically, there are two quite distinct types of noise sources produced by a wind turbine – the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. The Report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI), (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions.
A further report produced by Hayes McKenzie for DECC entitled “An Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications” suggested that best practice guidance is required to confirm and, where necessary, clarify and add to the way ETSU-R-97 should be implemented in practice. This report also concludes that there is no evidence of health affects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by turbines.
The most conclusive summary of the implications of low frequency wind farm noise for planning policy following on from the Hayes McKenzie report is given by the UK Government’s statement regarding the finding of the Salford University Report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise (September 2011). This study concluded that although Aerodynamic Modulation cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of Aerodynamic Modulation resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were four cases where Aerodynamic Modulation appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for three out of these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing.
Public Protection has considered the proposal but advice that there are several elements missing from the noise assessment. These are summarised below:
• There is no clear representation of excluded data in time histories or scatter plots; • There is no chart showing distribution of wind speeds and direction; • There is no turbine source noise data (including noise-reduced modes if used); • There is no turbine source octave band noise levels (including uncertainty); • There are no noise contours; • There is no assessment on the comparison of predicted noise level with derived noise limits.
The applicant has been advised of this response but has opted not to submit the above information to date. This was partly due to waiting for the expected submission of Blary Hill wind farm (a further wind farm proposal to the south of Barr Glen in an advance stage of preparation, but not submitted to date), however, the option has been available to submit the data as requested without considering the Blary Hill proposal.
In terms of construction noise Public Protection offer no concerns relating to the construction phase of the proposal at the closest sensitive receptors. Should Scottish Ministers be minded to approve the application then conditions would be required to ensure the required noise limits, in line with the SPP, are adhered to. Further details of noise and vibration should be submitted as part of the CDEMP.
Page 114
Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of noise and air quality the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines and LP BAD 1: Bad Neighbour Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
O. SHADOW FLICKER & ICE THROW (EQUIPMENT SAFETY)
Government guidance advises that if separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings (as general rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem. The ES confirms that the separation between the wind farm and the nearest residential property is greater than 10x rotor diameter (10 x 99.8m = 998 metres). Under accepted good practice and guidance, this will ensure that shadow flicker will not present a problem and Public Protection has not raised any concern in this regard.
Ice throw is not a matter which falls under the auspices of Planning or Public Protection. This said, companies supplying products and services to the wind energy industry are required to operate to a series of international, European and British Standards and the operator has a duty of care not to prejudice the health and safety of site operatives or other persons frequenting the site.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of shadow flicker the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines and LP BAD 1: Bad Neighbour Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
P. TELEVISION RECEPTION
Television reception can be affected by the presence of turbines although this has become less of a problem since the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting. In the event that reception is impaired then it is the developer’s responsibility to rectify the problem. This would need to be secured by condition in the event that planning permission is granted.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of any potential impact on television reception and is therefore consistent with the Provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).
Q. AVIATION MATTERS
There have been no objections to this element of the proposal from any consultees. However, HIAL has recommended that a red obstacle lights be fitted should permission be granted.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of aviation interests the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP
Page 115
REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development and Policy LP TRAN 7: Safeguarding of Airports of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
R. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE TO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
Telecommunications operators have been consulted to determine whether their systems would be affected by electro-magnetic radiation associated with electricity generation. Scottish Planning Policy and local plan policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.
The Joint Radio Company has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. The applicants’ ES details consultation with a number of providers none of whom raised concern. The applicants’ submission does suggest that terrestrial television signal might be affected to certain properties, however they are prepared to undertake appropriate mitigation and a planning condition can secure this. At time of writing no response has been received from CSS Spectrum Management and Ofcom despite consultation.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that in terms of communications systems the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy STRAT RE 1: Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policy LP REN 1: Commercial Wind Farm and Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
S. ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT
The ES states that the proposed route to the site for the delivery of abnormal loads would be the A83 north from the port of Campbeltown to the site. It is assumed in the ES that about 80% of construction traffic will travel up from Campbeltown with the remainder down the A83 from the north. The applicant intends to form a new access direct from the A83 north of Barr Glen village serving 7.5km of access tracks throughout the site. The applicant has also requested a 50m micro-siting allowance for this junction, which is inappropriate. Should Scottish Ministers approve the proposal then it is requested that the final positioning of the access track, plant, equipment and turbines is agreed with the planning authority prior to the commencement of works.
The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has advised that they have no objection to the proposal but request the following as conditions:
• Site access to be from the A83 Kennacraig – Campbeltown Road; • Connection public road to measure 160m x 4.5m x 1.05m; • Junction layout to be agreed in writing with Argyll and Bute Council prior to any work starting on site; • Junction to be reduced in size to comply with standard detail drawing reference SD08/001 Revision A on completion of all construction works; • No vehicular access to the site from the C20 Barr Glen Road; • No work shall start on site until the applicant has provided the following information, for in writing by Argyll and Bute Council: - A Traffic Management Plan which should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases
Page 116
- A detailed method statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and equipment.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal does not represent any road safety concerns and is generally consistent with the provisions of Policies LP TRAN 4: New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and LP TRAN 5: Off-Site Highway Improvements of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
T. INFRASTRUCTURE
No requirement for public water or foul drainage connection is identified. Scottish Water has commented that there are no sewers or public water supplies in the area. Additionally, Environmental Heath has not raised any concerns over impact on private water supplies. A condition should be required to secure a sustainable drainage strategy for the roads, turbine hardstanding areas, and the construction yard to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water run-off.
Having due regard to the above it is concluded that in terms of drainage and water supply the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LP SERV 1: Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. Drainage) Systems, LP SERV 2: Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems and LP SERV 4: Water Supply of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan.
U. WIND REGIME
In order to more accurately gauge the wind speed and direction, permission was sought for the erection of a 70m meteorological mast which was approved in October 2011 for a three year period. This has been erected on site and is operational. Data from the meteorological mast is not included in the ES and there is no requirement for it to be provided in support of the planning application. The ES simply states that the wind speed has been assessed as appropriate for wind energy generation and the site is accessible.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
V. GRID NETWORK & CABLES
Connection to the National Grid is not a matter of land use policy, however, it should be considered ‘in the round’ as part of the planning application process. The Environmental Statement states that: each turbine would be connected to the onsite control building by underground cable and that the grid connection is likely to involve a 33kV overhead line connection to the substation near Brackley, north of Carradale. This connection will be the subject of an application under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 to the Scottish Government, which will be the subject of consultation with the Council as planning authority.
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
Page 117
W. COMMUNITY BENEFIT
Community Benefit is not considered to be a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.
X. DECOMMISSIONING
Should Scottish Ministers determine to grant permission for this proposal a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration should be included in the conditions which will be triggered by either the expiry of the permission or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. This will ensure that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site would be restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, new tracks and hardstandings would be covered over with topsoil and reseeded; the cables would be de-energised and left in place, and any cables marker signs removed; and, the electrical substation building would be demolished to ground level with the foundation covered with topsoil and reseeded.
Having due regard to the above, as decommissioning could be controlled by condition/Section 75 Legal Agreement it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in that regard in terms of Policy STRAT RE 1: Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan and Policy LP REN 1: Wind Farms & Wind Turbines of the Argyll & Bute Local Plan, SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
Y. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY & ADVICE
The commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a vital part of the response to climate change. Renewable energy generation will contribute to more secure and diverse energy supplies and support sustainable economic growth (SPP). The current target is for 100% of Scotland’s electricity and 11% of heat demand to be generated from renewable sourced by 2020 (2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland).
SPP advises that wind farms should only be supported in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. Furthermore, that the criteria for determining wind farm proposals varies depending on the scale of proposal and its relationship to the characteristics of the surrounding area, but usually includes: landscape and visual impact, effects on the natural heritage and historic environment, contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets, effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests, benefits and disbenefits for communities, aviation and telecommunications, noise and shadow flicker, and cumulative impact. Finally, that the design and location of any wind farm should reflect the scale and character of the landscape and the location of turbines should be considered carefully to ensure that the landscape and visual impact is minimised.
For the reasons given above, the turbines proposed are out of scale with the receiving environment to the detriment of landscape and visual amenity interests, both of which are cited in SPP as valid material considerations in the assessment of the acceptability of wind farms.
Page 118
Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.
Z. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & ARGYLL & BUTE’S CONTRIBUTION
In assessing the acceptability of wind farm proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the macro-environmental aspects of renewable energy (reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and contribution to reduction in global warming) as well as to the micro-environmental consequences of the proposal (in terms of its impact on its receiving environment).
Installed onshore wind energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2012 was 5.8GW and is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020. As a consequence, planning authorities have to consider more frequently turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed (Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms).
Whilst the 62.7 MW maximum capacity of the proposal would add significant additional capacity to Argyll & Bute’s contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy commitments, it is not considered that the macro-environmental benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable generating capacity are such as to warrant the setting aside of the other development plan policy considerations identified above which have prompted the recommendation for refusal.
Page 119 Page 120
This page is intentionally left blank Page 121 Agenda Item 5
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle
Reference No : 14/00676/MFF Planning Hierarchy : Local Development Applicant : Kames Fish Farming Ltd. Proposal : Formation of finfish fish farm comprising the siting of 12 No. 100 metre circumference cages, associated feed barge and ancillary equipment. Site Address : Shuna Sound, west of South End House, Isle of Shuna
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Formation of Marine Fish Farm comprising 12 No. 100m circumference cages, walkways, mooring grid and associated lines for the production of Atlantic salmon or rainbow trout (amended from an original submission for 14 No. cages, in order to address concerns raised on behalf of the Planning Authority);
• Installation of feed barge.
(ii) Other specified operations
• Servicing from existing shore base at Kames Pier.
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that permission be granted subject to:
i) prior consideration as to whether a pre-determination discretionary hearing should be convened in response to the number of representations received, although it is not recommended that a hearing be required in the circumstances of this case;
ii) the conditions and reasons set out in this report.
(C) CONSULTATIONS:
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (25 th April and 6 th May 2014) – Initial holding objection on the grounds of inadequate information, but removed following
Page 122 submission of additional details to SEPA’s satisfaction. CAR licence for 2,500 tonnes peak biomass already granted by SEPA.
Scottish Natural Heritage (18 th May 2014) – The proposal requires consideration in terms of its likely significant effect upon the Firth of Lorn SAC. However, given that an ‘appropriate assessment’ in view of the site’s conservation objectives has already been carried out by SEPA as part of the CAR licencing process, which determined that solid flux, sea lice treatments and nutrients are calculable and will not have an adverse effect on site integrity, then a further ‘appropriate assessment’ as part of the planning process is not required. In terms of protected species no significant consequences for otter are envisaged. Given the potential for the use of ADD’s to affect cetaceans these should only be employed after other preventative actions have been taken. The proposal will have localised consequences for burrowed mud habitat and the seapens which it supports. However, significant areas of similar quality habitat remain unaffected so the proposal does not threaten the viability of sea pens and burrowing megafauna in Shuna Sound and the wider area. The proposal presents risk to wild fish as a consequence of disease, parasite transfer and escapes. Operation of the site in compliance with the Farm Management Agreement and the SSPO Code of Good Practice should ensure that the necessary containment and sea lice measures are attained in order to minimise the consequences for wild fish populations. The equipping of the site will give rise to visual impacts which although localised will be high in respect of part of Shuna and Airds Luing. The southern cages extend into the bay at Shuna Cottage which increases the impact in this locality. No landscape implications of national importance are raised, but the Council will wish to have regard to local landscape concerns.
Marine Scotland Science (22 nd April 2014 & 22 nd July 2014) – initial response requesting additional information relative to nutrient enrichment modelling, mortality removals, bath treatments, escape contingencies and predator control. In view of the history of sea lice numbers in this Farm Management Area a risk assessment should be undertaken in accordance with SSPO Code of Good Conduct recommendations in order to demonstrate that risks to health within and outwith the area are not materially increased by the proposal. Subsequent response following submission of additional information from the applicant (and the other operator in the same Farm Management Area) has satisfied Marine Scotland that that the risk of disease and sea lice spread outwith the area is within acceptable limits. As far as can be forseen the chemical treatment plan supplied by the applicant provides suitable available options for the treatment of sea lice. Marine Scotland is content that in the event sea lice strategies should prove to be insufficient then there are options for the applicants to increase fallow periods, reduce biomass, or harvest stock early as a means of addressing unforeseen sea lice problems.
Argyll & District Salmon Fishery Board (21 st April 2014) – objects to this application on the basis that the carrying capacity of the water body has been exceeded by the number of fish farms consented, and that these pose an unacceptable risk to wild salmon and sea trout. SSPO published sea lice counts for this area for the last three months of 2013 returned aggregate figures of between 2.85 and 8.48 lice per fish, well in excess of the SSPO’s own target of 1 louse per fish. As lice on farm fish proliferate and are dispersed into the wild they cause harm to wild fish interests.
Council’s Marine & Coastal Manager (21 st April 2014) – the benthic survey identifies the seabed within the predicted AZE as ‘burrowed mud with seapens’, including some tall seapens which are a BAP priority species. The predicted widespread distribution of this habitat in the Shuna Sound/Loch Melfort area mitigates against significant long term effects on the viability of this habitat type. The area affected by nutrient enrichment is modelled as being less than 1% of the Shuna Sound - Loch Shuna - Seil Sound - Loch Melfort area. The area is frequented by seals and cetaceans and the use of ADD’s in
Page 123
contained waters would be undesirable as they cause displacement and disturbance. The suggested of curtain netting would also be undesirable, as this poses a risk of entanglement for predatory species. Fitting seal blinds to the base of the cages as practiced at other sites in Argyll would be a more appropriate response. The proposal represents a significant increase in biomass in an area with a history of lice affecting farmed fish. SSPO sea lice reports indicate levels which meet CoGP guidelines Jan – Aug 2013, but with levels significantly above the thresholds in Sept – Dec. Having regard to the comments expressed by the Salmon Fishery Board and Marine Scotland, the applicants should satisfy Marine Scotland that consented treatments are sufficient to control sea lice at this site, and to be able to treat synchronously with other farms in the FMA all year round. Proposed containment and escape prevention measures are satisfactory. No consequences of significance for commercial fishing, navigation or recreation.
Council’s Biodiversity Officer (9th April and 26 th May 2014) – the use of acoustic deterrent devices (ADD’s) raises issues relative to seals and cetaceans and their use may require SNH licensing. Impacts on sea pen are considered negligible following submission of a benthic video survey. No adverse implications for seabirds. In terms of sea lice historic records from other fish farms in the area recorded numbers as being relatively high so effective treatment and containment will be necessary to limit implications for wild salmonids. Cooperation between farm interests in the Management Area in terms of synchronised treatments and fallow periods has been improving this position.
Scottish Wildlife Trust – no response
Historic Scotland – no response
Northern Lighthouse Board (8th April 2014) – no objection but advice given as to navigation marking and lighting requirements.
Clyde Fishermen’s Association – no response.
Royal Yachting Association (27 th July 2014) – no comments.
West Highland Anchorages & Moorings Association (16 th July 2014) – no objection. The bay to the south is exposed to the south-west and is little used, but is used occasionally. The deletion of two cages from the south end of the farm is welcome in freeing up this bay.
Luing Community Council (28 th May 2014) – is aware of some local concerns but on balance does not consider that the community as a whole are opposed to the application.
Kilninver & Kilmelford Community Council (11 th June 2014) – have expressed support for the proposal.
(D) HISTORY:
No planning history for this site.
The application site benefits from a CAR licence CAR/L/1109280 granted in November 2013.
Page 124
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in the local newspaper and the Edinburgh Gazette as required for EIA development, with the publicity periods having expired on 08.05.14.
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
(i) Representations received from:
Objections to the proposal have been received from 28 third parties along with expressions of support from 17 supporters and 2 neutral representations. Names and addresses of those having submitted representations are listed in an Appendix to this report. The grounds of objection and support are summarised below.
Support for the proposal
• Tourism is not prejudiced by fish farms which should be considered part of the rural environment in the same way farms on land are. Aquacuture provides an added point of interest for tourists along the coastline.
• The development presents opportunity to maintain or create jobs and to sustain supporting businesses such as divers, smoult suppliers, hauliers, marine and boat services, fuel and equipment suppliers etc, as well as supporting rural shops and schools . Unlike tourism, aquaculture provides year round employment and supports economic growth in an area otherwise lacking in employment opportunities.
• There will still be plenty of room for yachts and kayaks and access will still be available to moor in Shuna Bay, and tourism, fishing, recreation and aquaculture should all be capable of co-existing.
• The applicants are a reputable family owned business with a track record in vocational training, support for the community and operating to high environmental standards. Their commitment to invest in rural communities deserves support.
• The growth of the fish farming sector in Scotland should be supported as it is one of the most efficient and sustainable means of food production. Companies producing farmed fish have to adhere to environmental standards in the interests of rearing healthy stock, as well as looking after the environment.
• Very few people will see this fish farm, and commenting as a sailor, the development will not cause a problem for yachtsmen or boats. Fish cages are designed to have minimum visual impact, and in most cases are only visible over short distances, in stark contrast to the impact of wind turbines.
• The Council should listen to the views of local people rather than the negative opinions of those who live elsewhere and only visit occasionally.
Representations
• It is important that the development should respect the wildlife tourism businesses which are important in this area, with up to twelve boats operating on some days. These trips are dependent on wildlife sightings of species such as seals and porpoises. Predators should be kept away from farms in an environmentally friendly
Page 125
way without the use of ADD’s and without displacing non-target species. Fish farmers should be able to operate without impinging on existing marine users, and one way of doing this would be to require them by condition to employ double netting on the bottoms of their cages.
Comment: The applicants have stated their willingness to forego the possible deployment of ADD’s at this site in the interests of not disturbing cetaceans, and not prejudicing the interests of those wildlife tour operators who depend on regular sightings of these species. Jean & David Ainsley of Sealife Adventures have indicated that they are content with the revised predator control plan proposed by the applicants and do not object to the proposal as a consequence.
• There is a bay on Luing opposite the farm formerly used for oyster production and it would be disadvantageous if the development were to prevent a future resumption of operation or pose a threat to production. This is not an objection but an assurance that the development would not prejudice this interest would be welcome.
Comment: Nutrient enrichment associated with finfish farms is seen as a benefit to shellfish production rather than a threat. Indeed, the aquaculture industry sees advantage in mutual co-existence between the finfish and shellfish production sectors and is seeking to explore the benefits of closer association via IMTA projects.
Objections to the proposal
Objections founded on planning policy considerations
• The bay at the south end of Shuna is valued by residents and visitors and the site is surrounded by land classified as sensitive or very sensitive countryside.
Comment: The land adjoining the application site on Shuna and that opposite on Luing is classified by the local plan as ‘sensitive countryside’ which confers ‘undeveloped coast’ status by virtue of the effect of policy LP CST 2. The locality is also accorded regional scenic status by being included within an Area of Panoramic Quality. However, fish farms are commonly located in scenic locations in Argyll, including designations such as APQ’s and National Scenic Areas. The development plan status of the area is not such as to preclude development, but requires careful consideration of its landscape implications.
Objections related to pollution considerations
• The site will add to the pollution already associated with the existing fish farm at the north end of Shuna which has led to a deterioration of water quality in the Sound. It should be located in an area of fast moving water not at a point where the tidal flow is relatively slow;
• There must be serious questions about the capacity of the Loch Melfort - Shuna Sound water body to deal with waste and pesticides from multiple fish farms.
Comment: The proposed site already benefits from a 2,500 tonne peak biomass Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) licence granted by SEPA. Matters relating to water quality and pollution are controlled by SEPA under the CAR licencing process and the government cautions planning authorities against the improper duplication of other controls where multiple consenting regimes are applicable. There is no prescribed order in which the necessary consents should be sought, although in this case the applicants have elected to seek to obtain a CAR licence in the first instance, in order to
Page 126 confirm the consentability of the development from a pollution control perspective before going on to pursue a planning application. The CAR licences permits maximum biomass to be held on the site and licences permissible quantities of chemical treatments for use at the site. Although third parties continue to express doubt as to the reliability of SEPA’s conclusions in the matter, the granting of the CAR licence is a matter of record and its validity cannot be questioned as part of the adjudication of this planning application.
Objections in respect of marine and nature conservation interests
• The Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust notes that the area has significant concentrations of seals and cetaceans and the fish farm will be prejudicial to the interests of these species due to the deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices and potential seal shooting. The Environmental Statement does not recognise the presence of harbour porpoise, which can be excluded by the use of ADD’s over several kilometres. These are a nationally important population likely to be foraging at opposite ends of this tidally active sound. Deployment of ADD’s is likely to cause reckless disturbance to a European Protected Species and alternative predator management approaches should be considered in preference, such as the use of tensioned predator netting.
Comment: The consequences of the presence and operation of the site upon marine habitats and species are clearly important issues. SEPA’s recent CAR licence application process included a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ which concluded that the proposal would not affect the integrity of the nearby Firth of Lorn Special Area of Conservation. Given the conclusions of that, SNH does not consider that further assessment by the Council in respect of this designation is necessary as part of the adjudication of this subsequent application. The presence of European Protected Species in the Sound in the form of seal and cetacean species is recognised, and it is necessary to ensure that the proposed farm is capable of operating without seriously prejudicing the conservation status of these species. To that end, the applicants have agreed to amend their proposed predator control procedures to eliminate the prospect of the deployment of ADD’s at the proposed site, the use of which could impair the hearing of marine species, present a deterrent effect to non- target species, and in particular, present a barrier effect to cetaceans transiting along the Sound to the detriment of their natural distribution. As a consequence, there will need to be enhanced predator control by means of ‘seal blinds’ on the bases of cages to prevent predation of mortalities from below (as commonly practiced by other salmon producers), and a condition to require this and to preclude use of ADD’s at this site is recommended. The shooting of rogue seals is always a last resort. It is not an area subject to planning control as it is separately regulated by government licensing, so is not an appropriate matter to seek to control via condition.
Objections in relation to landscape, visual and amenity considerations
• The introduction of a development with an industrial appearance will despoil a beautiful area and will impinge on views from property at the southern end of Toberonochy on Luing;
• Having two fish farms within sight, smelling and hearing distance of Toberonochy will be detrimental to the interests of this conservation village, as it may deter visitors and new inhabitants from coming to the village;
• Even if the adjacent bay can still be accessed, pollution of the shoreline by discarded fish farm debris is likely to deter visitors.
Page 127
Comments: Given the location of the site within a designated Area of Panoramic Quality which recognises the value of the landscape/seascape a scenic asset of regional importance, it is necessary to give particular consideration as to the visual and landscape impacts of the development. The site is not one which would be regularly experienced at close quarters from the land on either Shuna or Airds Luing, given the absence of transport routes or occupied buildings along the coastlines, and the limited numbers of visitors to these areas. The location would be experienced from the environs of, but is not directly overlooked by, the nearby Shuna Cottage, although the owner of the property is a supporter of the proposal. It will be visible at a distance from the southern extremity of Toberonochy village and the environs of the jetty at about 1km and end-on to the cage group. From this locality it will be a noticeable feature in the Sound (as the existing site off the north end of Shuna is) but it will not dominate this view to the detriment of the overall appreciation of the Sound from Luing, or be an overbearing feature in the landscape/seascape setting of the village. The site is most likely to be appreciated at close quarters from the water by those transiting the Sound by boat (see section below). Fish farms are widely represented across the west coast of Scotland and there is no evidence to suggest that the scale and distribution of sites consented thus far has had serious implications for the attractiveness of the area for those looking to take up residence or acquire holiday homes.
Objections in respect of navigation interests
• The development is too near to the shore and poses an obstruction to one of the few beaches suitable for landing on from a boat;
• The development would narrow the Sound and would present a serious navigation hazard.
Comment: Issues relating to navigation will be considered by Marine Scotland as part of the Marine Licence required for the deployment of equipment in the water. As this is a separate regulatory regime, technical matters relating to navigation are not material planning considerations as such, although to the extent that they might have consequences for the tourism and recreational potential of the area, they have an indirect bearing on the acceptability of the development. Whilst the seabed area of the application site is extensive (in order to contain the limits of the mooring arrangements) the surface equipment and the buoys around that equipment present much less of an obstruction to navigation, particularly as the Northern Lighthouse Board do not require the outer anchor points to be marked by buoys. There is, of course, an operational requirement for workboats and larger servicing boats to be able to access the site. Although there is some narrowing as a result of the equipment, this will not prevent yachts from tacking along the Sound. It should be borne in mind that any north-south transiting boat traffic would have to negotiate the much narrower Cuan Sound between Seil and the Isle of Luing. The proposal does not restrict access to the occasionally used anchorage in the bay to the south of the site. The two cages deleted from the application proposal have been those at the south end in order to avoid any encroachment into the bay to improve landscape ‘fit’ and this has had the benefit of preventing any incursion into the bay which might otherwise have been to the detriment of other marine uses. Neither the Royal Yachting association nor West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association have objected to the proposal.
Objections in relation to recreation and tourism interests
• This is an area of importance for recreational sailing and kayaking and the proposal is prejudicial to these activities. The presence of the fish farm will degrade the recreational value of area as it will create a hazard and loss of amenity and will dissuade tourists from visiting the area for sailing and other recreational pursuits;
Page 128
• Many local employers depend on healthy seal, cetacean and wild fish populations, and salmon farming with its adverse impacts upon these species prejudices existing livelihoods;
• Fish farm development tends to occupy the best anchorages and sheltered bays, and contributes to marine pollution and shoreline debris, so the proliferation of fish farms is to the detriment of recreational sailing. This farm will block another sandy bay which provides a sheltered anchorage for yachtsmen;
• The tourism industry is dependent upon unimpaired landscape and a healthy marine environment. The benefits to the local economy from fish farming will be offset by an inevitable reduction in visitors. About 40% of the properties on Luing are holiday or second homes. It is noticeable that visits are becoming fewer and shorter with adverse consequences for the island economy so further degradation of the environment and any disincentive to visit would be unwelcome;
• The presence of the development would prejudice the future of the annual Toberonochy Traditional Boat Event as the area will be spoilt and the hazard too great.
Comment: It is for Members to weigh the balance between the economic and employment advantages of the development against any adverse consequence which the presence of the development might have for established tourism related employment. There is no definitive research which leads to the conclusion that the presence of fish farms in Scottish waters has thus far proven to be an acknowledged deterrent to tourism, although given the importance of scenery as a tourism resource in Argyll & Bute it is to be expected that inappropriately scaled or located sites might well deter visits by persons sensitive to the presence of aquaculture. The presence of the equipment on this site will be primarily experienced by boat users rather than by persons on land, although this will be on a seasonal and transitory basis. Some localised diminution in visual amenity will ensue in short range views as a result of the presence of equipment along an otherwise undeveloped piece of coastline; although the inshore location, the alignment of the equipment parallel to the shoreline, the backdropping by the coast, the low profile equipment, its recessive colouration and the siting of the barge inshore of the cage group will all assist in helping to assimilate the fish farm in its landscape setting. The capacity of the landscape to accommodate additional aquaculture in terms of its cumulative landscape and visual effects is addressed in the section below.
Objections in relation to cumulative impact
• There are already too many fish farms in the Loch Melfort – Sound of Shuna – Loch Craignish area and this additional site will present a further hazard to small craft, an unsustainable load on the water environment and will increase the risk to wild fish from sea lice contamination. Although SNH and SEPA may accept the number of farms as being within acceptable limits many environmental scientists would disagree. SEPA have not undertaken any cumulative impact assessment of the farms in Seil/Shuna/Melfort;
• The Sound is already adversely impacted upon by an existing fish farm and the wind turbines on Luing and is no longer the unspoilt rural landscape people come to visit.
The Loch Melfort – Seal Sound - Shuna Sound – Loch Craignish area is one characterised in part by the presence of aquaculture, and the immediate vicinity of the
Page 129
proposed site is already influenced by the nearby three wind turbines on Luing, so despite its scenic qualities and its recreational value, it cannot be regarded as a pristine landscape. Although this proposal would bring the number of fish farms around Shuna to four, it would be exceptional to circumnavigate the island other than when racing, so those transiting either side of the island would typically be exposed to two sites only. There is approximately 2km separation between the proposed site and the existing one at Port Na Cro at the north end of Shuna, which is greater separation than the two consented sites off the east coast of the island. The addition of the proposed site would not in cumulative impact terms exceed the carrying capacity of the landscape as a whole, although there would be some sequential effect from the water, as two sites would both be passed by boat at relatively close quarters. Those sites further afield would contribute to the overall presence of aquaculture within this water body, but would be sufficiently separated so as to not have inter-visibility or be otherwise experienced together. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the presence of aquaculture seriously prejudices the value of an areas as a tourism or recreational destination, and provided that they are not allowed to proliferate to a point at which they overwhelm landscape character, than there is no reason to conclude that they their presence will become a deterrent to repeat visits.
Objections is relation to the principle of marine salmon farming
• Fish farms present an unwelcome impact upon marine ecology and marine ecosystems. Ever increasing pollution from fish farms is unsustainable;
• Fish farming is inappropriate in areas of scenic quality as they are ugly, noisy, polluting, detrimental to wildlife and spoil access to the coastline;
• The government’s stated intent to increase fish farm production by 50% by 2020 is short-sighted as it undermines the natural environment and the tourism potential of the area. The Council has a moral, economic and ethical responsibility to safeguard an area of beauty and to think beyond the short term gain for an industry with a questionable track record;
• The farming of salmon is repugnant given that naturally these are migratory fish which swim alone. Animals have few rights and it seems fish none at all.
• Profits from fish farming go outside the UK and the development proposed will not provide any local jobs.
Comment: Consideration of the merits of this application requires to be confined to the site specific circumstances of the case. Whilst there are those who regard marine fish farming as being an unsustainable and environmentally harmful form of development as a matter of principle, it is a legitimate form of development supported by the Scottish Government who have targets for the development of the industry as a growth sector in the national economy, and as valued source of employment within economically deprived rural areas. Fish health and welfare is a matter which is addressed through operator authorisation and associated monitoring, which is the responsibility of Marine Scotland rather than the Planning Authority.
NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in this report, 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 130
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: Yes
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations No 1994:
(iii) A design or design/access statement: No
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed Not additional to the ES. development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc:
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Is a Section 75 agreement required: No
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 5 – Development in Sensitive Countryside
STRAT DC 7 – Nature Conservation and Development Control
STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009
LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment
LP ENV 2 – Impact on Biodiversity
LP ENV 6 – Impact on Habitats and Species
LP ENV 10 – Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs)
Page 131
LP ENV 12 – Water Quality and Environment
LP ENV 19 – Development setting, layout and design
LP CST 2 – Coastal Development on the Undeveloped Coast
Marine Consultation Area
LP AQUA 1 – Shell Fish and Fin Fish Farming
Expresses general support for fish farming subject to there being no significant adverse effect on a range of specified considerations; those relevant in this instance being:
1. Communities, settlements and their settings; 2. Landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity; 4. National Scenic Areas and Areas of Panoramic Quality; 5. Statutorily protected nature conservation sites, habitats or species, including priority species and important seabird colonies along with wild fish populations; 6. Navigational interests 8. Sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings 9. Recreational interests 11. Existing aquaculture sites 12. Water quality
In the case of marine fish farming this support is further conditional on the proposals being consistent with the other policies of the Development Plan and Scottish Executive Strategic Framework Guidelines.
Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
Scottish Planning Policy (2010)
Circular 6/1995 ‘European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System’ and revised Scottish Government Guidance June 2000
Circular 1/2007 ‘Planning Controls for Marine Fish Farming’
Scottish Executive – ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’ (2003 and updated June 2009 and December 2012)
‘A Fresh Start – the Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture’ ( 2009)
‘Guidance on Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture’ (SNH 2008)
‘Siting & Design of Marine Aquaculture Developments in the Landscape’ (SNH 2011)
‘Argyll & Firth Of Clyde Landscape Character Assessment’ (SNH 1996)
‘Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan’ Argyll & Bute Council
Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) Licence CAR/L/1109280 (01.11.2013).
Page 132
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No, EIA required.
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No
(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other):
In considering whether to hold a hearing Members should have regard to the number of representations received, the provenance of the objections, the materiality of the matters raised relative to planning considerations and the stances adopted by community councils. Of the 17 supporters, 15 have given Argyll addresses. Both representees have Argyll addresses. Of the 28 objectors 10 have given Argyll addresses, so a significant proportion of the objectors’ addresses are either from locations outwith Argyll or are undisclosed. Most but not all of the issues raised relate to material planning considerations. Neither Luing nor Kilmelford & Kilninver Community Councils have objected to the application. On balance, given the low number of representees giving local addresses, and in the absence of objection form either community council local to the site, it is not considered that the holding of a discretionary local hearing would add value to the process in this particular case.
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
The proposal seeks permission for the installation of a marine finfish development of 12 No. 100m circumference (32m diameter) cages and a feed/service barge to be utilised for the production of either farmed salmon or trout. The application as submitted was originally for 14 cages, but the proposal has been reduced to 12 cages during the course of processing, in order to avoid encroachment into a small bay adjacent to the site, so as to overcome shortcomings relative to the impact of the submitted layout upon its landscape/seascape setting and to improve conformity with aquaculture guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage.
The application site is located within Shuna Sound, inshore along the south-west coast of the Isle of Shuna and opposite the southern end of the Isle of Luing. Shuna is a largely unoccupied privately owned island hosting five holiday cottages, one of which South End House (also known as Shuna Cottage) is situated overlooking the Sound adjacent to the application site. The site lies off an area of largely inaccessible land, where it would be most readily experienced from boat traffic negotiating the Sound, or at a distance from the coastline adjacent to the nearest settlement at Toberonochy on Luing, approximately 1km to the north-west. The southern section of Luing (Aird Luing) is uninhabited south of Toberonochy. Both Shuna and Luing fall within Areas of Panoramic Quality due to their regional scenic importance. Shuna Sound itself is a seasonal recreational route affording transit to Seil Sound and the narrows at Cuan. Aquaculture is already an established feature around Shuna with one finfish site approximately 2km further along the Sound at the northern end of the island, and a
Page 133 further two fin fish sites off the opposite eastern coast.
The site lies within ‘uncategorised’ waters in terms of Marine Scotland’s Locational Guidelines, within which there are better prospects of accommodating aquaculture development without prejudicing the carrying capacity of the water body. Modelling supporting the application demonstrates that this categorisation will not change in the event the development is approved and implemented. The proposal has already been the subject of a successful CAR licence application from SEPA for up to 2,500 tonnes biomass, so the pollution consequences of the development, including the cumulative impact with other aquaculture developments within the same water body, have been assessed and found to be satisfactory. SEPA has carried out a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ of the consequences of the Firth of Lorn European Special Protection Area (designated for its serpulid reef habitat with its closest boundary some 2km away to the south of Luing) as part of its consenting process, which concluded that the transport of organic waste and chemical treatments will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC in light of its conservation objectives.
Neither SNH, SEPA, Marine Scotland, nor adjacent Community Councils have raised objection to the proposal. The District Salmon Fishery Board have raised objections in relation to cumulative impact upon wild fish interests as a result of sea lice propagation outwith the site, in combination with sea lice associated with existing sites. However Marine Scotland Science has expressed its satisfaction with the proposal, in combination with other sites, both in terms of disease and sea lice controls and considers that any risks associated with the development in within acceptable limits.
Scottish Planning Policy indicates the national importance of aquaculture in the context of rural areas and that fish farming should be supported in appropriate locations, subject to environmental considerations being assessed. Carrying capacity, landscape, natural environment, historic environment and potential for conflict with other marine users, including fishing and recreational interests, and economic factors will be material considerations in assessing acceptability. Planning Authorities are cautioned not to duplicate controls exercised by SEPA and Marine Scotland in their assessment of proposals.
Government policy is to support the expansion of marine fish farming where it can take place in environmental sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users; the Government having set some ambitious targets for the growth of the sector. It has already been demonstrated to SEPA’s satisfaction that the development can operate without compromising recognised water quality standards and that discharges from the site will not affect the integrity of nearby European protected habitats.
The location of the site between the largely unpopulated coasts of Shuna and Luing and the relatively contained visual envelope of the development is such that it will not exert any significant visual influence over settlements or roads, where most receptors can be expected to be found. The site would, however, be located in a Sound which is popular with recreational boat users and would influence locations at the southern ends of both Shuna and Luing which have recognised scenic qualities as acknowledged by their Area of Panoramic Quality designations. However, this is not an area devoid of influence from development, with those transiting the Sound having to navigate past an established fish farm at the north end of Shuna, and with the locality already being influenced by the presence of three 50m high wind turbines erected south of Toberonochy. Whilst the fish farm equipment will impinge on the available channel, it will not impede navigation or impinge on areas fished by creelers, nor will it restrict access for the occasional
Page 134
anchoring of yachts in the bay below Shuna Cottage.
Significant representation for and against the proposal has been received which warrants consideration being given as to the need to convene a pre-determination hearing.
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes
(R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted:
The proposal involves the establishment of a fin fish farm in an area already subject to the influence of aquaculture development, the siting of which would not expose settlements, roads or other regularly frequented locations to significant visual impacts. The presence of the development would be experienced across the southern ends of Shuna, Luing and Shuna Sound where it would influence the Area of Panoramic Quality designations afforded to these areas. However, these impacts would only be exerted over relatively short distances, so the landscape, visual and cumulative impact of the development would be within acceptable limits, whilst the separation from sensitive receptors avoids unacceptable amenity conflicts. The proposal would not give rise to effects of significance in respect of habitats, species, historic environment assets or commercial fishing interests. Navigation of the Sound and access to anchorages will remain unimpeded and recreational interests will not be seriously prejudiced. The pollution consequences of the development in combination with other fish farm developments upon the protected habitats of the Firth of Lorn SAC have been assessed separately as part of the separate CAR licencing process. The proposal contributes to the Scottish Government’s stated aspiration to increase production capacity in the finfish sector and provides an element of economic benefit in a remote rural area The proposal satisfies the provisions of the development plan and there are no other material considerations, including matters raised by consultees and third parties, which would outweigh the presumption in favour of development established by the plan.
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
Not applicable
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No
Author of Report: Richard Kerr Date: 27th July 2014
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Page 135
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 14/00676/MFF
1. The development hereby permitted is in respect of 12 No. cages as per the amended application, rather than 14 No. cages for which permission was originally sought. Subject to the foregoing, and having regard to the deletion of cages Nos. 1 and 8, the development shall not be carried out other than wholly in accordance with the following plans and details unless previously approved in writing by the Planning Authority:
• Application Form dated 24.02.14; • Plan 1 of 13 – location plan, layout and cross-section (amended); • Plan 2 of 13 – site plan (amended); • Plan 3 of 13 – Admiralty chart (amended); • Plan 4 of 13 – mooring containment area (amended) • Plan 5 of 13 – long-section (amended); • Plan 6 of 13 – co-ordinates for surface equipment; • Plan 7 of 13 – co-ordinates for mooring grid and lines; • Plan 8 of 13 – pen drawing 1 • Plan 9 of 13 – pen drawing 2 • Plan 10 of 13 – pen drawing 3 • Plan 11 of 13 – feed barge drawing 1 • Plan 11 of 13 – feed barge drawing 2 • Plan 11 of 13 – feed barge drawing 3 • Mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement dated February 2014
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. Notwithstanding the effect of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 and Class 21F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2012, the stocking of the farm hereby approved may take place interchangeably with either rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or with Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar).
Reason: For the purpose of clarity to define the species permitted to be farmed at the site.
3. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body.
4. In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation, the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the carrying out of all measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
Page 136
5. All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity .
6. The finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface including the feed barge and surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non- reflective and finished in a dark recessive colour in accordance with colour schemes to be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority (by way of BS numbers or manufacturer’s specifications) unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
7. The site shall be operated in accordance with the applicant’s submitted Predator Control Plan (23.05.14) or such revision thereof as may be agreed subsequently in writing by the Planning Authority. No deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices shall be permitted at the site. Seal blinds of a type to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority shall be fitted to the base of each cage upon first installation and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: To avoid the displacement and disturbance of seals and cetaceans in contained waters, and to deter predation and avoid containment being breached in the interests of wild samonids.
NOTES TO APPLICANT
• This permission shall only last for a period of three years from the date of this decision notice unless the development is started within that period.
• In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act.
• In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority.
• In terms of condition 1 above, the council can approve minor variations to the approved plans in terms of Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 although no variations should be undertaken without obtaining the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. If you wish to seek any minor variation of the application, an application for a non-material amendment (NMA) should be made in writing to Planning Services, Manse Brae Office, 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead, PA31 8RD which should list all the proposed changes, enclosing a copy of a plan(s) detailing these changes together with a copy of the original approved plans. Any amendments
Page 137
deemed by the Council to be material, would require the submission of a further application for planning permission.
• The applicant should have regard to the navigational marking requirements of the Northern Lighthouse Board as set out in their consultation response. • The Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009 requires the authorisation of all Aquaculture Production Businesses (APB's) in relation to animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. The authorisation procedure is undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) at Marine Scotland Marine Laboratory. To apply for authorisation for an APB or to amend details of an existing APB or any site that an APB is authorised to operate at, you are advised to contact the FHI as follows: Fish Health Inspectorate, Marine Scotland Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB. Tel: 01224 295525; Email: [email protected]
• All marine farms, whether finfish, shellfish or algal, are required to apply for a marine licence under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. To apply for a marine licence, or to amend details of an existing marine licence (formally Coast Protection Act 1949 – Section 34 consent), please visit the Scottish Government’s website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/Applications where application forms and guidance can be found. Alternatively you can contact the Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT) by emailing [email protected] ; or calling 01224 295 579.
Page 138
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/00905/MFF
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
The applicant in this case is Kames Fish Farming Ltd who currently operates a number of finfish farming sites from its base at Kames, by Kilmelford. The applicant seeks to establish a new site for the production of either salmon or trout to be serviced from this existing shorebase. Having explored the merits of other potential locations, a site in Shuna Sound has been selected on the basis of suitable tidal flow, sheltered location, separation from existing sites, and ability to be serviced from Kames. The site lies off the south-west coast of the Isle of Shuna, faced by the southern end of the Isle of Luing on the opposite side of the Sound. The site has already been the subject of a Controlled Activities Regulations application to SEPA and a CAR licence has been granted for a peak biomass of 2,500 tonnes, on the basis of a development comprising 14 No 100m circumference cages. Having submitted this application for that scale of development, the proposal has, subsequently been reduced during the processing of the application to 12 No. 100m cages, in order to overcome conflict with SNH published guidance on the siting and design of aquaculture development, which seeks to minimise landscape and visual impact upon the receiving environment. This reduction in equipment capacity will result in a proportionate reduction in the tonnage capable of being held at the site to around 2,150 tonnes.
The proposal is now therefore for 12 No. 100m circumference cages, with a diameter of 32m, to be held in a 70m x 70m grid matrix within a 2 by 6 formation with mooring lines and rock anchors used to secure the position of the grid relative to the seabed. The site will be located approximately 85m offshore, in water depth of around 25m to 30m, and 12 m deep nets are to be suspended from 0.4m diameter polyethylene flotation rings, with the installation of top nets to exclude pisciverous birds. The cage nets are held in tension in order to resist predation by seals. A 200 tonne concrete feed barge (14m by 10.5m) will be permanently moored inshore of the cage group, with feed being dispensed pneumatically via feed pipes. The barge comprises feed silos, a generator, maintenance and crew accommodation, and is designed in a manner so that the silos are below the waterline so to reduce its visual impact. It will be finished in a recessive colour, with generator noise only audible at close quarters. No underwater maturation lighting is to be employed at this site, so lighting will be restricted to that necessary to meet NLB navigational requirements.
There are currently three finfish farms around the coast of Shuna, as follows:
Port Na Cro (NW Shuna) – 8 square pens plus a feed barge (max. biomass of 900 tonnes); Shuna Castle (NE Shuna) – 5 circular cages plus a barge (max. biomass of 900 tonnes); Pol Na Gile (SE Shuna) – 14 circular cages plus a barge (max. biomass of 1,500 tonnes).
There are further aquaculture sites in the wider area:- off the coast of Craignish (1 No.), in Seil Sound (1 No.) and in Loch Melfort (3 No.).
Page 139
The proposed site will operate on a 22 month production cycle, with harvesting commencing after 16 months, followed by a 2 month fallowing period prior to restocking. Stocking density would be 18.7kg/m 3 at peak biomass. The site would be capable of producing 3,000 tonnes of trout or 4,600 tonnes of salmon over a 22 month production cycle. Normal operating hours would be 0800 to 1700, increased to 0700 to 1800 during stocking and harvesting. The site would be routinely serviced from the applicant’s existing shore base at Kames Pier, whilst bulk feed deliveries and stocking and harvesting of fish would be by boat. The site lies within the Lower Lorn Management Area (16b) and would be operated within the Lower Lorn Farm Partnership Agreement (Kames and Marine Harvest) with single year class synchronous stocking and fallowing of existing farms and the proposed site. The site will be staffed by 3 to 4 full-time employees plus 2 part-time staff.
The site would be operated in compliance with the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation’s ‘Code of Good Practice Guidelines for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’. This sets out more than 300 main specific compliance points which cover all aspects of finfish good practice including:
• Fish Health – good husbandry and harvesting operations; • Protecting the environment – including sea lice management and containment standards; • Welfare and husbandry – breeding and stocking density; • Detailed annexes giving further technical guidance on good practice, including the National Lice Treatment Strategy, Integrated Sea Lice Management, Containment, and a Veterinary Health Plan.
The applicants have provided details of their husbandry procedures, manufacturers’ site specific attestations for equipment, nets and moorings and a Predator Control Plan. With regard to predator control, it is noted that the ES states that Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) would only be deployed in circumstances where the site becomes subject to attempted predation. However, a subsequently revised Predator Control Plan has confirmed that it is not intended to deploy ADD’s at this site. As a last resort in the event of persistent rogue seal activity and with evidence of a seal having breached containment, the shooting of a seal may take place in accordance with a Scottish Government licence already held by the company. Management of sea lice is to take place by a combination of in-feed treatment and bath treatments carried out by means of the use of tarpaulins and net shallowing.
B. Natural Environment - Fresh Water, Marine Environment and Biodiversity.
The provisions of Policies STRAT DC 7, LP ENV 2 and LP ENV 6 all seek to resist development which is considered likely to result in a significant adverse impact upon internationally, nationally or locally important habitats and/or species.
The application site is not located within any European or national nature conservation designations. Whilst the proposal lies outwith the Firth of Lorn Special Area of Conservation (SAC) it is within potential influencing distance of the SAC, the nearest point of which is to the south of the Isle of Luing. For that reason a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ was carried out by SEPA in its assessment of the preceding CAR licence application, in respect of the qualifying interests of this European marine site. That concluded that there would not be any significant impact either individually or in combination with consented sites upon the conservation objectives of the SAC. Scottish Natural Heritage is content that the conclusions of that assessment are equally applicable in the case of this subsequent planning application,
Page 140 and that the Council as Planning Authority is not required to undertake a further ‘appropriate assessment’.
The Sound is also frequented by species of nature conservation interest including otter, seals, wild salmonids, porpoises and other cetaceans, for which development of the type proposed could have consequences in terms of displacement or deterrence. The consequences of the proposal for protected species are considered in the following sections of this report. The site comprises part of a wider area of ‘burrowed mud habitat’ which hosts varieties of sea pen which are a BAP priority species, although visual evidence has led SNH and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer to conclude that the tall species of sea pen which are of greatest conservation importance will not be significantly affected by this proposal.
Seabed (Benthic) Impacts:
The development will affect seabed conditions as a consequence of the deposition of organic matter in the form of faeces. Furthermore, although the industry has made advances in the reduction of waste food as a result of more sophisticated feeding regimes, waste food also contributes to seabed deposition. This can take the form of localised smothering of the seabed, as well as more distant deposition arising from the propagation of waste matter from the site. The quantity and the extent of deposition are influenced by the tonnage of fish held, hydrographic and bathymetric conditions. Seabed impacts are regulated separately by SEPA via the CAR licence process, which determines maximum biomass with regard to the carrying capacity of the particular site. A CAR licence to hold and treat up to 2,500 tonnes of fish at peak biomass has already been obtained from SEPA, which addresses the discharge consequences of the development in terms of smothering, as well as chemical treatments and cumulative nutrient enrichment.
The applicants have provided a benthic survey, a visual assessment and a modelling assessment in support of their proposal, all of which have been considered by SEPA as part of their CAR licence application and which have helped inform SEPA’s conclusions in respect of their ‘appropriate assessment’. There are no specifically designated habitats below or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Modelling has been used to predict a site specific Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE) in order to demonstrate compliance with SEPA’s requirements. This indicates that there will be localised enrichment with high dispersal at this flushed location. SEPA has accepted this conclusion along with the fact that there will be low cumulative impact as the next nearest site is 2.5km distant. The CAR licence which was issued at the end of 2012
SNH and SEPA are both content with the benthic surveys undertaken by the applicant and neither have objections to the proposal on the grounds of unacceptable benthic impacts.
Water Quality Impacts:
Enrichment of water by nutrients released from salmon farms can cause an accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms and the quality of water.
This site is located in a Sound which is subject to tidal currents and modelling indicates that waste dispersal will be into deeper water within the carrying capacity of the wider water body. Shuna Sound is ‘uncategorised water’ for the purposes of Marine Scotland’s Locational Guidelines, where there are better prospects for aquaculture development in terms of water body carrying capacity. Nutrient enrichment modelling for the proposed site taking account of existing operational sites indicates that the
Page 141 nutrient and benthic impact indices will remain unchanged as a result of this additional site, and as a consequence, water body categorisation under Marine Scotland guidelines will remain unaltered. Estimated nutrient enrichment is well below the threshold of 50% above the OSPAR and UTAG reference levels, and consented sea lice treatments have been set in the CAR licence for the site at a level which will not breach SEPA’s Environmental Quality Standards. Whilst localised impacts are anticipated from particulate and dissolved wastes, modelling results indicate that these, when considered cumulatively with other consented sites, will not result in a significant deterioration in the quality of the receiving water body; a position accepted by SEPA in the issuing of a CAR licence for the biomass sought by the applicants. In response to a request for clarification as to the matter of cumulative impact SEPA has replied that given the area is not categorised under Locational Guidelines this is indicative of Shuna Sound being a relatively open area of water not environmentally sensitive to nutrient loadings. SEPA is therefore content that Shuna Sound has sufficient hydrographic characteristics to dilute and disperse the discharge of nutrients released from the proposed development such that, taken in combination with other potential sources of nutrient loadings, there would be no localised effects in the vicinity of the cages nor significant wider environmental impacts to Shuna Sound as a whole.
Neither Marine Scotland Science nor SEPA have raised objection to the proposal in respect of the predicted impact of the development upon water quality.
Interaction with Predators:
Salmon farm predators are generally piscivorous birds and seals, with the latter tending to be the most frequently encountered predators on marine farms in Scotland. The presence of sea cages may attract higher concentrations of predators to the locality of the site, although good husbandry and hygiene procedures will help to reduce the attraction of predators. Tensioned netting on fish cages prevents and deters both seals and diving bird attacks, although regular removal of mortalities from the bottom of the nets and regular maintenance of the nets to maintain their integrity is necessary to avoid attempts at predation. Top nets are to be installed on the cages to avoid predation by birds from above the waterline. Bird nets require to be maintained to a high standard and properly tensioned eliminate the opportunity for birds to become entangled or to be able to enter the cage. The fish cages themselves are to be manufactured to current industry standards, with a net specification, tensioning arrangements, and an installation, inspection and maintenance regime to meet the SSPO ‘Code of Good Practice’ requirements. It is clearly in the operator’s interest to ensure that equipment is specified and maintained in a manner to ensure containment of the farmed fish. Site specific equipment attestations have been supplied to confirm that, in the respective manufacturer’s opinions, the equipment intended for use on this site is suitable and sufficiently durable to be deployed having regard to the characteristics of in the particular marine environment proposed.
The ES does not identify any major colonies of predators in the vicinity of the application site, although there are both grey and harbour seals in the area, with the nearest major haul out at 6km, but some smaller haul outs within 4km. The Environmental Statement concludes that proposed use of good husbandry (mortality and moribund fish removal) and hygiene practices based on experience at other sites, coupled with the use of tensioned nets will be sufficient to deter predators at the proposed site. Given the applicant’s willingness not to resort to the deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD’s) at this site in the interests of nature conservation and to avoid impacts on the wildlife tourism businesses operating in this area, given the seal population in the wider area, there is a consequent need for enhanced passive measures to resist predation. It is therefore recommended that in the event that permission is granted a condition should be applied, firstly to preclude use of ADD’s, and secondly, to require that cages are fitted with false bottoms (‘seal blinds’) in order
Page 142 to reduce prevent attacks from below. Fish mortalities come to rest on the base of the cages and despite regular removal these present a particular attraction to predatory seals and pose the risk of containment being breached. Other salmon farm operators routinely install cages fitted with seal blinds as part of their predator control measures, and in the absence of the ability to have recourse to the use of ADD’s to rest attacks by persistent seals, then it is prudent that these should be fitted at this site at the outset. The applicant’s suggestion of curtain netting to the sides of the cages would not be an appropriate solution, given that these present an entanglement risk for marine species.
The applicants already hold a Seal Management Licence for their existing fish farms to which they would request this proposed site by way of an addition in the event that planning permission is granted. The applicants have only had recourse to the shooting of one seal at their farms since the introduction of licensing. In addition to seals, otters also frequent the location of the site. However, as an inshore shallow feeding species, experience elsewhere has shown that this protected species routinely co-exists with fish farms without apparent detriment.
Scottish Natural Heritage has not raised objection to the proposal on the grounds of unacceptable consequences for potential predators or other wildlife.
Interaction with Wild Salmonids:
Farming of salmon in the marine environment can give rise to well-known consequences for wild fish as a result of disease transmission, sea lice propagation and escapes which can lead to competition and inter-breeding, with consequences for the genetic dilution of native wild stocks. Salmon and Sea Trout are vulnerable to interaction with farmed fish and are both a UK BAP and the A&B LBAP species and included in the Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan. The potential for escapes from farms (as with predator control) can be reduced by having an equipment specification determined by site specific wave and climate analysis so as to ensure that it is fit for purpose. An associated inspection and maintenance regime is then required to ensure on-going containment integrity. Predator control plans, and escapes contingency plans, as submitted by the applicant, are also important elements in risk management.
Although containment risks can be managed, they cannot however be eradicated and there remains a residual risk that an unforeseen event can propagate escaped farmed fish in large numbers into the uncontrolled marine environment. Escapes of farmed stock are generally low, but can occur through equipment failure, predation, operator error, severe weather or foul play. By adherence to the SSPO ‘Code of Good Practice Guidelines’ the applicant seeks to minimise this residual risk as far as is practicable. Likewise, via good husbandry practices, regular inspection and the administration of medicines in accordance with veterinary health plans, outbreaks of disease which could have consequences for wild fish can be managed.
The most intractable issue influencing the interaction between farmed salmon and wild fish species is that of sea lice transmission. Farmed fish are routinely hosts to parasitic sea lice, the numbers of which require to be controlled in order to assure the health of farmed fish and to avoid lice propagation into surrounding waters. Wild salmon can be exposed to sea lice from fish farms close to salmon rivers during their migration periods, whilst sea trout tend to remain in coastal waters throughout the year, so are potentially at greater risk. In this case there are no major wild salmon fisheries within 15km of the site, the closest rivers being the Oude in Loch Melfort (16km) and the Barbreck in Loch Craignish (20km).
Page 143
The applicant proposes to control sea lice in accordance with current industry practice, via the use of in-feed treatments and net shallowed bath treatments, whilst adopting good management practices such as single year stocking and synchronous stocking, fallowing and lice treatment with other sites within the Lower Lorn Farm Partnership Agreement (FPA), and containment measures to satisfy SSPO CoGP guidelines. Should control procedures prove insufficient to control lice to CoGP levels then the applicants would, in consultation with other FPA operators, give effect to other measures such as early harvesting, extending fallow periods or reducing biomass.
However, effective the control measures prove to be in practice, it is an inevitable consequence of holding fish in such quantities that sea lice will be propagated from the site (even if numbers are low per fish). How these are dispersed will depend on local factors such as wind direction and residual current. The distribution of farm derived lice in the marine environment is not well understood although it is known that in favourable conditions they can travel considerable distances from source. In addition to sea lice propagation, failure of containment can lead to escapes which pose a threat to wild fish due to competition or through breeding. The applicants consider that their tensioned net systems are appropriately specified so as to be fit for purpose at the site and that they are accompanied by appropriate management measures and predator control arrangements to minimise the prospect of escape events.
The District Salmon Fishery Board has objected to the application on the ground that it will introduce a further large tonnage of farmed fish into an area already hosting multiple finfish sites, which will present an unacceptable cumulative impact on the interests of wild salmonids, particularly as a consequence of sea lice propagation. The DSFB notes that SSPO published sea lice counts for this area for the last three months of 2013 returned aggregate figures of between 2.85 and 8.48 lice per fish, well in excess of the SSPO’s own target of 1 louse per fish. In reply the applicants have pointed out that these aggregated figures do not reflect their significantly better track record as an operator in terms of the efficacy of sea lice treatment at their own sites.
In response to the DSFB’s comments, the applicants point out that the proposal would bring the total number of fish farms in the wider area in 8 fin fish farms not 9 as suggested. The ‘relatively small’ area referred to by the DSFB within which these sites are located, is actually 50km 2. It has an enormous tidal flow and there are no major salmon rivers within 16 -20km. The Oude was the main salmon/trout river in the area but since being dammed virtually no fish run in the river. These factors would not, however, reduce in any way the company’s efforts to control lice. The published aggregated figures do not reflect the applicant’s actual figures on the applicant’s own sites, which in the last quarter of 2013 ranged between 0.4 and 1.7 lice per fish. The new owners of the sites in the management area not controlled by the applicants (Marine Harvest) have put in large resources in the last six months to reduce lice numbers on their sites, which are now close to GoGP guidelines, so under good practice, lice can be controlled to the required standard. Both companies are co- operating with synchronous treatments and fallowing, and consideration is being given to employing wrasse as an additional biological control. Sea lice treatment already consented by SEPA is suitable to allow efficacious treatment of lice populations at this enlarged site in accordance with recognised standards.
There have undoubtedly been problems in the wider area in the past in being able to control sea lice to levels recognised by the industry and regulators as being acceptable, both in terms of the welfare of the farmed fish, and in terms of the interaction with wild salmonids. The position of the DSFB is that regardless of whether sea lice can be controlled at this site at a level to meet CoGP guidelines, there will nonetheless be more lice propagated into the marine environment as a result of the presence of significant additional tonnage of fish and that this in itself poses
Page 144 unacceptable risk to the interests of the wild fish population in the area. Officers have requested that Marine Scotland Science give particular consideration in this case to the cumulative impact of existing sites plus this proposed additional site on wild fish species as a result of sea lice transmission. They are best placed to advise the Council given that they have access to disaggregated records and historical data relating to sea lice numbers at the individual sites which they monitor, and they have the scientific expertise in the matter.
In response, Marine Scotland
Scottish Natural Heritage have not objected to the proposal on the grounds of the threat posed to wild salmonids.
Impact upon Species and Habitats of Nature Conservation Importance:
The site lies outwith but adjacent to the Firth of Lorn Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the closest boundary of which is to the south of Luing. The SAC covers open water to the west of Luing and waters around Scarba and to the north of Jura, but excludes the more enclosed waters of Seil Sound, Shuna Sound and Loch Melfort Covering an area of approx. 210km2 the Firth of Lorn SAC has been designated for its ‘rocky reef habitats’ which support an exceptional marine biodiversity, with associated communities and species which are amongst the most diverse in both the UK and Europe. Conservation objectives for the SAC are to avoid deterioration in the qualifying interest (rocky reefs) thereby ensuring that the integrity of the designation is maintained. Although at a distance from the designated SAC, there may be potential for the proposed development to affect the designated area by means of the deposition of organic waste, and by chemotherapeutants transported into the designated area by tidal currents. The proposed fish farm has the potential to affect qualifying interests in a number of ways. Firstly, from smothering as a result of the transport and deposition of solids, secondly, due to toxicity from the exported residues of chemical treatments, and thirdly, from the cumulative impact of the development with other sites within influencing distance of the SAC.
Where a development proposal is not connected with the management of a Natura site for nature conservation, is likely to have a significant effect on the site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), or effects are unknown, then the ‘competent authority’ assessing the merits of a development proposal is required to carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’ in order to evaluate anticipated effects on the conservation objectives of the designated site. This applies equally to developments located outwith designations which have the potential to impact upon qualifying interests within the designations, as it does to those developments proposed within designated areas. In such circumstances, only when it is concluded ‘beyond reasonable scientific doubt’ that the development under consideration will not adversely affect the integrity of the designation, may permission be granted. In all other circumstances permission must be refused (other than in the specifically excepted cases where no alternatives exist, or there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for development to proceed).
In this instance SEPA as ‘competent authority’ in respect of the CAR licence process has conducted its own ‘appropriate assessment’ prior to the granting of the licence for this site. This concluded that the proposal would not compromise the nearby SAC designation given that impacts from solids flux, sea lice treatments and nutrients are calculable, and having regard to modelling results and accepted environmental standards the development proposed would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC in light of its conservation objectives. Scottish Natural Heritage are content that
Page 145
the conclusions of this assessment are such that they do not warrant further consideration by the Council as Planning Authority in terms of Habitats Regulations procedures and accordingly a further ‘appropriate assessment’ is not required in this case.
There are no nature conservation designated sites (SSSI’s or SAC’s) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed farm, although it does lie within a Marine Consultation Area defined by Scottish Natural Heritage in view of the overall quality of the marine environment. The presence of seapen (a seabed invertebrate BAP priority species) within the burrowed mud habitat has been recorded but there do not appear to be of particular importance locally and given there is widespread distribution of this habitat along the Sound and further afield the proposal does not present a significant threat to the distribution of this species.
Scottish Natural Heritage and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer have has not raised objection on the grounds of unacceptable consequences for marine mammals, otters, BAP species or the qualifying reef habitat of the SAC
The proposal is considered consistent with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (5 and 12) and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice water quality and associated biodiversity interests.
C. Landscape/Seascape Character and Historic Environment
The application site lies inshore in a relatively remote location off the west facing coast of the Isle of Shuna, within Shuna Sound, where it can be experienced by those transiting the Sound by boat and from the eastern side of Aird Luing, between Toberonochy and the southern tip of the island. Other than for Shuna Cottage which stands close to the site on Shuna island, there is no nearby or overlooking habitation, no public road access, and relatively little public access. The site would be visible, but at a distance and end-on to the cage group from the coastal environs of Toberonochy village, which also has long-distance visibility of the existing Port Na Cro site at the northern end of the Sound. Shuna Cottage faces south-west away from the direction of the site and the owner of the island and its holiday cottages has recorded his support for the proposal. Remaining closer-quarter visibility from locations on land would be from the unpopulated southern end of the Isle of Luing, approximately 0.7km to the west.
The development does not lie within a National Scenic Area nor does it imping on designated areas of Wild Land. The proposed site lies off ‘sensitive countryside’ identified by the local plan which in turn confers ‘undeveloped coast’ status on the locality by virtue of the effect of Policy LP CST2. It also lies within an ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’ which accords the locality a scenic designation of regional status.
The provisions of Policies STRAT DC 8 and LP ENV 10 seek to resist development which is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the key landscape characteristics of these designations. Both islands either side of Shuna Sound are identified as falling within the ‘Craggy Coast and Islands’ landscape character type, identified by Scottish Natural Heritage as having a small scale diverse topography within a distinct seascape context which provides a unifying element. The APQ recognises the panoramic value of the seascape and the views to and from the islands.
The intended location lies close inshore and parallel to the coast, where it would benefit from a dark coloured and elevated landscape backdrop, whilst the equipment is low- lying and to be finished in a recessive colour. The feed barge is to be situated inshore of the cage group which will help reduce its visual impact for most close quarter
Page 146 receptors, which are likely to be water borne. However, as submitted, the 14 cage configuration of the site was such that the southernmost cages projected out into the small bay adjacent to Shuna Cottage. This layout did not entirely conform to Scottish Natural Heritage’s published good practice guidance on the location and design of marine aquaculture development, which recommends that equipment should be aligned parallel to shorelines and should avoid incursions into enclosed areas of water such as inlets and bays. In response to SNH criticism of this aspect of the development in their consultation response, and in order to address these shortcomings, the applicants have agreed to delete the two southernmost cages from the development. This improves the landscape ‘fit’ of the development and also has the benefit of reducing the impact upon the setting of scheduled monuments on Shuna, which were most affected by the southernmost end of the cage group. Most terrestrial receptors (habitation, roads, frequented public locations) would be at a significant distance from the remaining equipment, which would not dominate their wider landscape setting when appreciated from such locations. The lack of access being routinely taken to the stretch of coast on Shuna above the site is such that there will be very few receptors taking closer quarter views down into the equipment.
The primary effect upon the perception of the landscape/seascape of Shuna Sound will be in terms of those transiting the Sound by boat. Shuna already host three operational finfish farm sites so aquaculture is already an established component of local landscape character. Shuna Sound is a body of enclosed water which is frequented by recreational boat traffic and a recognised cruising route. Yachts, tour boats and kayaks currently pass the existing site at Port na Cro to the north, so their experience of the Sound is already influenced by the presence of aquaculture equipment. Additionally, the three wind turbines at the southern end of Luing (about 1km west of the site) exert a presence of development on the surroundings of the site, so despite is scenic qualities and its recreational value, it cannot be regarded as an entirely pristine landscape/seacape. The applicant has undertaken a landscape and visual impact assessment in accordance with SNH guidance which concludes that there will be localised ‘moderate adverse’ impacts on coastal character and ‘medium to high adverse’ impacts on the recreational use of Shuna Sound within 1km reducing to ‘low to negligible’ beyond that. There will be cumulative sequential effects upon water borne receptors, as depending on routing, two to four fish farms could be passed during transit along Shuna and Seil Sounds, or circumnavigating Shuna. However, the separation between these sites is such that the magnitude of this impact is quantified as being ‘low’.
There a four scheduled monuments within 1km, three cairns on Shuna (approx. 300m NE of the site) and one on Luing. The impact on the settings of these relatively infrequently visited locations is assessed as being ‘low’, and is improved by the deletion of cages from the southern end of the site.
It is concluded that that the landscape and visual effects of the development will be localised and will not be significant for the majority of land based receptors. From the coast fringing the nearest settlement at Toberonchy on Luing it will be a noticeable feature in the Sound (as the existing site off the north end of Shuna is), but it will not dominate this view to the detriment of the overall appreciation of the Sound from Luing, or be an overbearing feature in the landscape/seascape setting of the village. The development will contribute to the presence of aquaculture for water borne receptors, but in the context of a series of water bodies which already host multiple aquaculture sites, and where they already form an element in the composition of landscape character, it is not considered that the number of sites or the proximity of existing sites are such as to warrant the proposal being resisted on cumulative impact grounds, as a result of the carrying capacity of the landscape having being exceeded.
Page 147
Scottish Natural Heritage has not objected to the proposal and welcomes the deletion of two cages from the southern end of the site in an effort to improve assimilation in the landscape and to secure closer adherence to their published guidance on aquaculture and landscape.
The proposal complies with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (2, 4 and 8) and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice landscape character, visual amenity, designated areas of scenic quality or the settings of historic environment assets.
D. Other Marine Users
Shuna Sound is used by creel fishermen, although none fish in the vicinity of the application site, and it is visited only infrequently by trawlers. No objection to the proposal has been submitted by fishermen’s organisations. Although the seabed lease area is extensive to accommodate the required seabed moorings, the area restricted by equipment and mooring lines is much less and navigation relatively close to the cage group is possible. Indeed, the installation has been designed to afford sufficient draught for larger boats to service the farm and for workboats to come alongside the cages. The equipment is to be located close inshore to the east of existing navigational and RYA cruising routes. In the absence of incursion into the small bay below Shuna Cottage, continued access to this this occasional anchorage and access to the beach will remain unhindered. Navigational implications of the development will be considered separately by Marine Scotland under the marine licencing procedure. Some diminution in amenity for those transiting the Sound or visiting Shuna Bay by boat will result from the presence and operation of this additional fish farm site, although impacts will be transient, localised and seasonal, and will not be such as to be likely to as a significant deterrent to continued use of the waters around Luing and Shuna for recreational purposes.
The proposal complies with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (6 and 11) and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice navigation and the continued exploitation of traditional fishing ground.
E. Noise
Noise associated with the development will arise from the operation of workboats and other vessels associated with the fish farm, plus noise from the generator within the concrete feed barge and from the pneumatic distribution of feed along the feed pipes. The nearest settlement is Toberonochy which is more than a kilometre away from the site. The only building close to the site is Shuna Cottage which is a holiday letting property on the private island of Shuna. This is orientated away from the site and the owner is an active supporter of the proposal. Given the absence of other habitation or other sensitive receptors, and the transient nature of boat traffic, noise from the operation of the site is not likely to cause detriment to amenity.
F. Transport
There is no need for access to the locality of the site by road. Construction deliveries will be made via Kames Pier. Routine servicing will be undertaken by boat from the applicant’s existing shore base at Kames. Stocking and harvesting of fish and feed deliveries will take place by larger vessels arriving from elsewhere.
G. Socio-economic considerations
Page 148
Existing employment in the locality is associated with commercial fishing, aquaculture, tourism and farming. The applicants already employ 16 full-time and 2 part-time staff in association with their current aquaculture operations. The proposal would lead to a requirement for an additional 3 to 4 full time and 2 part-time jobs. Scottish Government estimates are that each additional aquaculture job in Scotland supports an additional 2.1 jobs in ancillary industries.
The proposal would introduce additional development into an area valued for its scenic qualities, its wildlife interest and its tourism and recreational potential, so it is appropriate to consider whether the additional economic benefit associated with the proposal would be offset by the negative implications the proposal might have for tourism related employment. From engagement thus far between the applicants and tour boat operators, it is apparent that the primary concern of the latter is to avoid operational disturbance of wildlife in the interests of maintaining sightings, rather than concerns associated with the visual impact of equipment. There is no evidence to suggest that fish farms which are located appropriately are instrumental in tourists being dissuaded from visiting an area, or represent a deterrent to repeat visits. Indeed, experience elsewhere has shown that tour operators may visit fish farms in the event that wildlife sightings prove illusive. Aquaculture is distributed widely along the coast of Argyll, including more sensitive locations than that proposed within National Scenic Areas, and the experience is that it is capable of co-existing with recreational tourism and other marine users provided that the scale and location of sites are appropriate and that sites are sufficiently separate so as to not overwhelm the carrying capacity of landscapes valued for tourism or recreational purposes.
H. Conclusion
The proposal has not given rise to objection from consultees other than the District Salmon Fishery Board who consider that cumulatively, sea lice from multiple fish farms in an area with a history of less than satisfactory control, present an unacceptable risk to wild salmon and trout. There has objection from third parties in terms of impact upon water quality, habitats and species, and in view of the presence of the equipment in terms of landscape character, navigating interests and the experience of those transiting the Sound by boat. Neither Luing nor Kilmelford & Kilninver Community Councils have objected.
Given that pollution issues are largely the remit of SEPA, and having regard to the government position that Planning Authorities should not seek to duplicate other regulatory regimes, it is inappropriate that those matters which are properly the responsibility of SEPA should be revisited as part of this application. Marine Scotland Science and Scottish Natural Heritage have considered the implications for wild fish interests, including cumulative effects, and do not consider that they merit refusal of the application. Of those other matters which fall within the remit of the Planning Authority none have been identified which point to the need to withhold planning consent. In those circumstances it can be considered to be compliant with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 and other relevant development plan policies, and there are no other material considerations identified of such magnitude as to warrant other than planning permission being granted in conformity with development plan policy.
Page 149
Supporters for 14/00676/MFF
Adrian Love Tutor, Sport Fisheries And Aquaculture 12/05/2014 S Sparsholt College Winchester Hampshire SO21 2NF
Alan Stewart Falach nam fiadh 22.07.14 S Ormsary Road Lochgilphead PA31 8NZ
Allan McDougall Unit 6 Sandbank Business Park 06/06/2014 S Highland Avenue Sandbank PA23 8PB
Ardorain Marine Ltd per Lerags 12/05/2014 S Colin Robertson Oban PA34 4SE
Beri Robb Carraig An Tuachdar 07/05/2014 S Cullipool Road Cullipool Isle Of Luing PA34 4TX
Bruce Condie No Address Given 14/05/2014 S
Colin Clark 8 Cuilfail Cottages 14/05/2014 S Kilmelford Oban PA34 4XB
Craig Darbyshire 23 Stevenson Street 07/05/2014 S Oban PA34 5NA
David Trafford Reul Na Mara 14/05/2014 S Arduaine Oban PA34 4XQ
Dawn Stewart 3 The Anchorage 09/05/2014 S Ardfern Lochgilphead PA31 8QN
Doris Trafford Reul Na Mara 14/05/2014 S Arduaine Oban
Page 150
PA34 4XQ
Fusion Marine Limited - The Marine Resource Centre 12/05/2014 S per Iain Forbes Barcaldine By Oban PA37 1SR
Ian McAdam 5 Forestry Cottages 11/06/2014 S Eredine PA33 1BS
Jocelyn Richard Mill Cottage 08/05/2014 S Lossit to Ballygroggan Road Machrihanish PA28 6PZ
Phil Connor Allt Mor House 03/06/2014 S Clachan PA29 6XL
Roddy Dixon Aurora View 03/06/2014 S Benderloch PA37 1QS
William Bergius Craignish House 26/05/2014 S Ardfern PA31 8QN
Objectors to 14/00676/MFF
Andy Wrate 8 Kirkhill Drive 30/04/2014 O Oldmeldrum Aberdeen AB51 9FP
Anne Delap No Address Given 02/05/2014 O
Antoinette Mitchell Barochreal 11/06/2014 O Kilninver By Oban PA34 4UT
Arthur Blue 5 Brackley Park 25/04/2014 O Glenburn Road Ardrishaig PA30 8EU
Bill Haylock No Address Given 25/04/2014 O
Brice Avery 4 Toberonochy 29/03/2014 O Isle Of Luing
Page 151
PA34 4UE
Clare Campbell 21A Douglas Crescent 25/04/2014 O Edinburgh EH12 5BA
Dawn Crowe No Address Given 25/04/2014 O
Denise Cowley 39 Toberonochy 04/04/2014 O Isle Of Luing PA34 4UE
Ewan Kennedy No Address Given 07/04/2014 O
Hebridean Whale And 28 Main Street 30/04/2014 O Dolphin Trust Tobermory Isle Of Mull PA75 6NU
Hugh Gray No Address Given 09/06/2014 O
Iain Oughtred No Address Given 25/04/2014 O
John Forbes 10 Keith Row 29/04/2014 O Edinburgh EH4 3NL
John Lowe 44 Woodside Drive 02/05/2014 O Forres Moray IV36 2UF
Julia Galbraith 7 Toberonochy 14/05/2014 O Isle Of Luing Argyll PA34 4UE
Katharine Wake 10 Keith Row 29/04/2014 O Edinburgh EH4 3NL
Mark Robertson c/o Oban General Hospital 25/04/2014 O
Martyn Webster No Address Given 25/04/2014 O
Matt Thompson 3 Clifford Road 25/04/2014 O North Berwick EH39 4PW
Michael Ashcroft 15 Woodfield Drive 29/04/2014 O Greetland Halifax West Yorks HX4 8NZ
Page 152
Nick Barberton No Address Given 25/04/2014 O
Peter Dutton 30 Toberonochy 25/04/2014 O Island Of Luing
Peter Stott Coille Dhariach 30/04/2014 O Kilmelford PA34 4XD
Roc Sandford Gometra Farm 18/04/2014 O Isle of Gometra PA73 6NA
Richard Townshend 38 St Dunstans Crescent 25/04/2014 O Worcester
Stephen Shaw 12 Small Lees Road 29/04/2014 O Ripponden Sowerby Bridge West Yorkshire HX6 4DZ
Syann Van Niftrick Hampshire 25/04/2014 O SP6 2AR
Representees to 14/00676/MFF
Shane Cadzow Ardlarach 02/05/2014 R Isle Of Luing PA34 4TZ
Tony Hill 101 Tracks on Easdale Island 30/04/2014 R Easdale Island PA34 4TB
Page 153 Page 154
This page is intentionally left blank Page 155 Agenda Item 6
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______
Reference No : 14/01018/PP
Planning Hierarchy : Local Development
Applicant : Isle of Luing Community Trust
Proposal : Variation of Condition 9 of Planning Permission 10/1059/PP – Change from West Highland Slate to SSQ Matacouta Slate
Site Address : The Atlantic Islands Centre, Cullipool, Isle of Luing ______
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Variation of Condition 9 of Planning Permission 10/01059/PP – Change from West Highland slate to SSQ Matacouta slate ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. ______
(C) HISTORY:
10/01059/PP Erection of building incorporating museum, licensed cafe, exhibition/function room and offices – Granted: 10/02/11
12/00532/NMA Non material amendment to planning permission 10/01059/PP (Erection of building incorporating museum, licensed cafe, exhibition/function room and offices) - reduction in size of building – Granted: 13/03/12
13/02744/NMA Non Material Amendment for adjustment of building siting, deletion of porch, amendment to plant room position, omission of viewing deck and changes to fenestration relative to planning permission 10/01059/PP – Granted: 19/12/13 Page 156
______
(D) CONSULTATIONS:
Luing Community Council
Letter dated 10/06/14 not giving an opinion on the proposed development but setting out the views of residents, both for and against the proposal.
Conservation Officer E-mail dated 05/08/14 confirming the approach to use new slates is acceptable but that the slate proposed is too regular in appearance and an alternative should be sought with details of alternatives given. Also advising that diminishing course work should be sought to the roof finish to ensure the new development integrates into its surroundings. ______
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in terms of a development affecting the setting of a Conservation Area, closing date 12/06/14 with the associated site notice closing date 05/06/14. ______
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
32 representations have been received regarding the proposed development. 17 objections and 15 support
OBJECTION
Mr George Pearson, 17 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (20/05/14) Ms Pamela Baker, 3 Fladda, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UA (25/05/14) Mr Ian Hitchins, Breadalbane Cottage, Toberonochy, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TY (26/05/14) C J Hughes, Ferry House, South Cuan, Oban, PA34 4TU (02/06/14) Mrs Anne Walton, 9 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (09/06/14) Mr Barry Wilson, Kinkell, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (10/06/14) Mr Peter Lamont, Glenburn House, Toberonochy, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TY (11/06/14) Ms Susan Cook, 27 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (11/06/14) Ms Linda Power, 52 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (12/06/14) Mr Andrew Wilson, 52 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (11/06/14) Mrs Julia Galbraith, 7 Toberonochy, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UE (12/06/14) Mr Ian Law, Kinloch Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (12/06/14) Mrs Jane Law, Kinloch Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (12/06/14) Ms Edna Whyte, Gallery House, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TX (11/06/14) Mr Leonard V McGeoch, Cluain Siar, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TX (13/06/14) Mr Nicholas Bielby, Frizingley Hall, Frizingley Road, Bradford, BD9 4LD (06/08/14) Ms Sheila Bielby, Frizingley Hall, Frizingley Road, Bradford, BD9 4LD (06/08/14)
(i) Summary of issues raised
• The proposed building is to be a heritage centre focusing on the history of the island which is world famous for its slate quarrying. It would be wholly inappropriate and hypocritical to have anything other than locally sourced slate on the roof.
Page 157
Comment: The applicant recognises that the slate heritage of the island is an important aspect of the Atlantic Islands Centre and both the building and interpretive material on display will celebrate the local slate quarrying industry. It is indicated that the building will incorporate the reclaimed slate from the walls of the original building and Luing slate in the form of paving slabs, gravel and extensively in the hard landscaping around the building and car parking areas. It is considered in this instance, given the quantities required and the finite resource of West Highland slate, an alternative new slate would be acceptable for the building. However, the slate subject of the application is not considered appropriate, and therefore a condition is recommended with the requirement that samples from alternatives sources are submitted for the further approval of the Planning Service. These could include other indigenous sources in the UK, such as Welsh or Cumbrian slate, rather than the Spanish slate proposed, as these would in size, texture and appearance more closely relate to West Highland slate.
• The reasons given for not using West Highland slate are all excuses, there is no shortage of supply and there is no shortage of evidence as to the longevity of reclaimed slate.
Comment: It is considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the reasons for the use of an alternative slate to one of West Highland origin.
• The building will have a large and prominent roof surface in close proximity to Cullipool House and in clear view of visitors approaching the conservation village by road. Any difference in slate type will be obvious.
Comment: It is considered that through a variation of the wording of the condition a sympathetic alternative to a West Highland slate can be secured the appearance of which would not be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Cullipool Conservation Area.
• The granting of permission for this change would set a precedent which would make it difficult to justify refusing similar requests for other, older buildings being re-roofed.
Comment: Favourable consideration of the use of an alternative slate on this new, purpose built building would not set a precedent for the use of alternative slate on existing, older buildings, likely to require slate in smaller quantities.
• Galvanised corrugated iron would be a preferable alternative material to the slate proposed.
Comment: There is an intention to use natural slate and only the provenance and exact type of slate is at issue, so there is no requirement to consider the use of alternative types of roofing materials.
• The guidance from Historic Scotland is advisory rather than mandatory.
Comment: This is noted.
Page 158
• As a development in the Conservation Area it is prudent that the requirement to use local materials is enforced.
Comment: Whilst it is considered important that the general form of any new development should reflect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is not considered that there would be sufficient justification in this case to insist on the use of a slate of West Highland origin provided the slate proposed is largely similar in appearance.
• It is believed that it was a condition by funders that the building be finished in local materials.
Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.
• If permission is to be granted, the slate should be applied in diminishing courses.
Comment: This is noted and is recommended to be secured by way of condition.
SUPPORT
Mr Alastair Fleming, 23 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (24/05/14) Ms Zoe Fleming, 23 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (24/05/14) Mrs Fiona Cruickshanks, Kiloran Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing (26/05/14) Mrs Denise Cowley, 39 Toberonochy, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UE (28/05/14) Mr John Laird, 10 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (04/06/14) Mr Peter Hooper, The Swallows, South Cuan, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TU (29/05/14) Mrs Birgit Whitmore, 22 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (11/06/14) Mr Norman Bissell, 51 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (11/06/14) Mrs Jane MacLachlan, Jubilee Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TX (13/06/14) Miss Rachel Cruickshanks, Kiloran Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (13/06/14) Mr Iain Cruickshanks, Kiloran Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (13/06/14) Miss Hazel Cruickshanks, Kiloran Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (13/06/14) Miss Megan Cruickshanks, Kiloran Cottage, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (12/06/14) Mrs Kirsty MacLachlan, Dunchonnel, Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4TX (12/06/14) Mr Colin Brown, 38 Cullipool, Isle of Luing, PA34 4UB (12/06/14)
(ii) Summary of issues raised
• It is disappointing that sufficient quantity and quality of West Highland slate cannot be sourced for the building, but in their absence the slate proposed is a suitable alternative.
• The slate proposed has very similar characteristics to traditional slate and once weathered will be difficult to differentiate from the local material.
• Many roofs within the Conservation Area are finished in the slate proposed in this application.
• Applaud Historic Scotland’s guidance which recommends against the use of West Highland slate for new buildings.
Page 159
• The proposed slate provides a 75 year guarantee.
• The proposed slate has been used on listed and historic buildings throughout Scotland.
• We do not need to pretend that we have a plentiful supply of West coast slate, but we must move forward, acting responsibly and using common sense in our decision to use the resources recommended to us in a new build of this kind.
• It is important to reserve the dwindling stock of second hand West Highland slate for essential repairs to listed buildings in the conservation villages.
These comments are noted.
The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess . ______
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: No
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:
(iii) A design or design/access statement: No
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development Yes e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc:
There have been two general supporting statements and a letter from a local developer regarding the availability of West Highland slates and the suitability of the proposed Spanish slate. These are all detailed in Appendix B of this report. ______
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ______
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
Page 160
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control STRAT DC 9 – Historic Environment and Development Control STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009
LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 13a – Development Impact on Listed Buildings LP ENV 14 – Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LP COM 1 – Community Facility Development Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
Argyll & Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Managing Change in the Historic Environment, Roofs, 2010 Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2011 ______
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ______
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ______
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______
(O) Requirement for a hearing: No
In deciding whether to exercise the Council’s discretion to allow respondents to appear at a discretionary hearing, the following are of significance:
• How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process.
• The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations together with the relative size of community affected set against the relative number of representations, and their provenance.
The application has been the subject of 32 representations, 17 objections and 15 expressions of support, which is confirmation of local interest in the application. Page 161
However, this application is merely seeking to amend the detail of a condition imposed on the grant of a previous planning permission approved by Members at a Local Hearing. Given that the principle of development on the site has been established by the previous permission, it is not considered that a hearing would add value to the process of determining the current application. The application does not itself raise any complex or technical issues and the objections received are very detailed and provide sufficient information to enable a thorough and informed assessment to be undertaken.
It is therefore recommended that Members do not hold a hearing prior to the application being determined. ______
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
Planning permission 10/01059/PP was granted in February 2011 for erection of a building incorporating a museum, licensed cafe, exhibition/function room and offices within the village of Cullipool on Luing. Two non-material amendments have since been granted, which show the building reduced in size and its siting adjusted along with other minor changes.
Condition 9 of the original permission required that the roof of the building be finished in a slate which should be of West Highland origin. This application seeks to vary that condition and use a specific Spanish slate which has been chosen as being of similar proportion, thickness and quality to that of traditional Scottish slate.
In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009’ Policy LP ENV 14, Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas, states that there is a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing or proposed Conservation Area or its setting.
The main issue in respect of the proposal is whether the proposed slate is a suitable alternative to one of West Highland origin, and its impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The proposal has elicited 32 representations, 17 objections and 15 expressions of support the vast majority of which are from residents of the Island. ______
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes if conditioned as recommended. ______
(R) Reasons why planning permission should be granted
Whilst it is considered important that any new development should reflect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is not considered that there would be sufficient justification in this case to insist on the use of a slate of West Highland origin provided the slate proposed is largely similar in appearance.
In this case whilst the proposed slate may match the size, thickness and quality of the traditional Scottish slate, it is considered it is too regular in appearance giving the overall effect of a roof with a different character to that of traditional Scottish slate. Accordingly whilst it is reasonable to consider new slate for the building given the quantities required and the difficulties of sourcing second-hand slate, it is considered appropriate that samples from alternative sources should be submitted for the further approval of the Planning Service. These could include other indigenous sources in the UK, such as Page 162
Welsh or Cumbrian slate, rather than the Spanish slate proposed, as these would in size, texture and appearance more closely relate to West Highland slate.
On this basis it is considered acceptable to vary the wording of the existing planning condition to remove the requirement for a slate of West Highland origin, provided samples from alternatives sources are submitted for further approval.
It is not considered that this approach would be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Cullipool Conservation Area and would not represent a conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan. ______
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
N/A ______
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______
Author of Report: Fiona Scott Date: 05/08/14
Reviewing Officer: Angus Gilmour Date: 07/08/14
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Page 163
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/01018/PP
9. No roofing works shall commence on the building until a sample(s) of the proposed roofing slate to be used has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the duly approved sample(s) which shall be applied to the roof in diminishing courses.
Reason: To ensure the use of a roofing material of local provenance to reinforce local distinctiveness in the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the conservation area.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
The planning application hereby approved only amends condition 9 of the original planning permission reference 10/01059/PP to the wording detailed above and it must be read in the context of the original permission. A full copy of the original planning conditions has been appended to this decision notice, and in all other respects permission 10/01059/PP remains unchanged.
1. That the development to which this permission relates must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
2. No development shall commence on site until the vehicular access at the junction with the public road has been upgraded in accordance with the Council’s Road Engineers Drawing Number SD 08/004a, re-aligned to 90 0 with visibility splays of 53.0m x 2.4m having been formed in each direction formed from the centre line of the access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall have been cleared of all obstructions above the level of the adjoining carriageway and shall be maintained free of obstruction thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
The first 5 metres of the vehicular access serving the development from the junction with the public road shall be constructed with a bitmac surface and shall be formed to at least base course level prior to any work starting on the erection of the building which it is intended to serve with the final wearing surface of the access being applied prior to the first occupation of the building.
Reason: In the interests of road safety to ensure the proposed development is served by a safe means of vehicular access.
3. The proposed on-site vehicular parking and turning areas shall be formed in accordance with the approved plans and brought into use prior to the first occupation of the building and thereafter maintained in perpetuity.
Reason: To enable vehicles to park clear of the access road in the interests of road safety by maintaining unimpeded vehicular access over that road.
4. No development shall commence on site until a plan has been drawn up in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineer showing the provision of 1 passing place on the access to the development site and has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Page 164
passing place shall be formed in accordance with the duly approved plan and shall be brought into use prior to the first occupation of the building and thereafter maintained in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of road safety to ensure the proposed development is served by a safe means of vehicular access.
5. No development shall commence on site until details of the type and position of any extraction ventilation system to be installed, including details of the internal and external flues have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. No fans, vents or flues shall be installed other than in accordance with duly approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and to protect the amenity of nearby occupiers.
6. No development shall commence on site until full details, in plan form, of the proposed protective barrier have been submitted and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity to ensure the proposal integrates well within its landscape setting.
7. No development shall commence on site until full details of a scheme for protecting the neighbouring residential properties from noise from the proposed development has been submitted for written approval by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Public Protection Unit. Thereafter the duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise disturbance.
8. No development shall commence on site until details of a scheme of boundary landscaping treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the construction of the building, with landscaping works being completed during the first planting season following the first occupation of the building. Any planting which fails to become established, which is removed, dies or becomes seriously diseased within ten year of planting shall be replaced in the subsequent planting season with numbers sizes and species equivalent to those originally required to be planted.
Reason: To ensure suitable integration of the development into the landscape.
[9. Amended by Planning Permission 14/01018/PP]
10. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 21/06/10 and the approved drawing reference numbers:
Plan 1 of 6 (Drawing Number 06.39.01 A) Plan 2 of 6 (Drawing Number 06.39.02 A) Plan 3 of 6 (Drawing Number 06.39.03 A) Plan 4 of 6 (Drawing Number 06.39.04 A) Plan 5 of 6 (Drawing Number 06.39.05 A) Plan 6 of 6 (Drawing Number 06.39.03)
Page 165
unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. Page 166
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01018/PP
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Settlement Strategy
In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, the site is identified as being within the Settlement Zone of Cullipool on the Island of Luing.
This designation stems from policy STRAT DC 1 of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ which states that within the ‘minor settlements’ encouragement is given to development which is compatible with an essentially rural settlement location on appropriate infill, rounding off, and redevelopment sites.
Policy LP COM 1 presumes in favour of new community facilities provided that they are of a form location and scale consistent with Policy STRAT DC 1 and subject to a series of other criteria. The proposal is consistent with the settlement strategy established by the local plan.
Policy LP ENV 14, Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas, states that there is a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing or proposed Conservation Area or its setting.
The proposal has elicited 32 representations, 17 objections and 15 expressions of support the vast majority of which are from residents of the Island.
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
Planning permission 10/01059/PP was granted in February 2011 for erection of a building incorporating a museum, licensed cafe, exhibition/function room and offices within the village of Cullipool on Luing. Two non-material amendments have since been granted which show the building reduced in size and its siting adjusted along with other minor changes.
Condition 9 of the original permission required that the roof of the building be finished in a slate which should be of West Highland origin. This application seeks to vary that condition and use a Spanish slate similar in proportion, thickness and quality to that of traditional Scottish slate.
The only issue for consideration is whether the proposed slate is a suitable alternative to one of West Highland origin and its impact on the Conservation Area.
In support of the application, there have been two general supporting statements and a letter from a local developer setting out the reasons for seeking to vary the condition to allow for the alternative slate. In summary, the statements set out the difficulties in obtaining a sufficient number of quality reclaimed slates to cover the roofs. 12000 slates are required for the building and the statement anticipates that due to the level of wastage between 24000 – 26000 slates will be required. The statement sets out the reasons why this is not a sustainable option as these slates should be retained for the ongoing repair of historic buildings and not for a new build development. The statements also consider that the reclaimed slate from the old engine shed will be utilised in the walls of the building and Luing slate will be incorporated into the development in the form of paving slabs, gravel and the hard landscaping. Full details of the supporting statements are detailed in Appendix B of this report.
Page 167
The site is situated on the approach to the main village of Cullipool at the southern end of the main settlement. The site is bounded to the east by the original quarry pond and to the west by the un-adopted track which runs alongside the adjacent public road.
Policy LP ENV 14, Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas, states that there is a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing or proposed Conservation Area or its setting.
Historic Scotland’s Managing Change document recognises that Scottish slate is not currently in production and that second-hand supplies are limited. For repairs to historic buildings they advise that, where possible, existing slates should be re-dressed and reused. If it is necessary to specify new natural slate, regard should be given to finding the best modern equivalent in terms of colour, thickness, weight and texture.
The site forms part of the Cullipool Conservation Area but is situated on the periphery of the main part of the village and does not form part of the established pattern of development within the village. It is noted that there exists a wide range of slate in the immediate vicinity of the application site, the village and the wider Island.
Whilst it is considered important that the general form of any new development should reflect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is not considered that there would be sufficient justification in this case to insist on the use of a slate of West Highland origin, provided the slate proposed is largely similar in appearance.
In this instance, given this is a new building it is reasonable to consider the use of new slates given the quantities required, however, the appearance of the slate and how it is applied to the building will be critical to successful integration, given the amount of roofing work to be undertaken. In this case, whilst the proposed slate may match the size, thickness and quality of the traditional Scottish slate, it is considered that it is too regular in appearance and may not be the best solution for the building.
Accordingly, in this specific case it is proposed to vary the wording of the existing planning condition to remove the requirement for a slate of West Highland origin subject to samples from alternatives sources being submitted for the further approval of the Planning Service. The applicant’s agent has confirmed their agreement to this approach.
Advice from the Council’s Conservation Officer indicates that slates from the Lake District or Welsh Quarries (Portmadoc) are potentially suitable alternatives and would give a far less uniform appearance than Spanish slate. Such alternatives are readily available. This approach is consistent with that taken elsewhere in Argyll and Scotland where alternative slates to West Highland have been used on buildings within Conservation Areas.
The alternative condition will also require that the slate is applied in diminishing courses in the traditional manner, to ensure the development is sensitively integrated into its surroundings.
On balance this approach is considered to be acceptable and would not be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Cullipool Conservation Area and would not represent a conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan.
Page 168
APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01018/PP
Atlantic Island Centre – Supporting Statement
“History & Background
The last quarry to produce slate in the Atlantic closed in 1966, while the last commercial quarry at Ballachulish closed in 1955.
Several attempts have been made to re-open one or two of these quarries including the ‘Khartoum’ quarry at Ballachulish and indeed at Cullipool on Luing but for a number of reasons nothing has happened so far.
Following World War 1 it was perceived that slate was the roofing material of the past, the slums and the poor, while man-made tiles, such as the Rosemary Clay tiles were the materials of the future. This contributed to the downturn and eventual closure of the slate quarries.
The end result is that no new Scottish slate is available and there is a severe shortage of good quality, large second-hand slate. When demolition and restoration of Central Belt tenements was at its peak slates were set aside, but as this practice has all but ceased the availability of second-hand slates has declined. Further the quality of reclaimed slate is also often in question.
In Cullipool itself, the slates used on cottage roofs would have been at the lower end of the quality and size, scale with the best quality, large slates being sold.
It should also be noted that 90% of the natural slate used in Europe, now and historically, originates in Spain. Slates are quarried from rock that is 500 million years old and has a low water absorption index (0.4%) making it resistant to freezing and frost damage.
By the time a reclaimed slate has been re-dressed the size of slate available has decreased. Sufficient slates to repair an existing roof can often be found, but sourcing sufficient good quality, good sized slate to roof the entire AIC is less easy. In any event there are a considerable number of existing buildings with Scottish/West Highland slated roofs. In conservation terms, good practice suggests that the remaining reclaimed slates should be used to maintain existing historic buildings rather than squander them on new. The following is an extract from Historic Scotland Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, item 1.5.9: In view of the scarcity of the material, second-hand Scottish slate should not be used in new building work.
Second-hand slates do not carry a guarantee so any defects are not covered by a supplier. In any event most second-hand slates have been used for a minimum of 60 years, with many being in place for over 100 years.
Proposal
While it may seem incongruous to import a European slate to a Scottish slate island, we propose to use a Spanish slate that matches the size, thickness, quality and appearance of the traditional Scottish slate. In particular the Matacouta Ultra Heavy, a blue-black slate from the Matacouta quarry supplied to the SSQ Group, provides a good match to the Cullipool village slate. It has been tested in accordance with EN12326, carries a CE marking and carries a minimum 75 year guarantee.
This slate has been used on both listed and historic buildings across Scotland”. Page 169
Atlantic Island Centre – Additional Supporting Information
“The slate heritage of the Isle of Luing is an important aspect of the Atlantic Islands Centre and both the building and interpretive material on display will celebrate the local slate quarrying industry and the lives of the families involved.
Featured prominently in the entrance lobby of the new building will be an evocative image of the quarry workforce pictured outside the original Engine House in the early 1900s. The image will be accompanied by text explaining what the original building was used for and how the design of the new building has been inspired by it. It will also highlight the fact that the walls of the new building utilise the reclaimed slate from the walls of the original building. In addition, a number of original Luing roofing slates (approx. 300) signed by supporters and benefactors of the Isle of Luing Community Trust will be incorporated into a landscape feature adjacent to the building. Luing slate, in the form of both paving slabs and gravel, will also be used extensively in the hard landscaping around the building and car parking areas.
These are all sustainable use of reclaimed materials that enhance rather than detract from the historic environment of the island, Argyll or Scotland.
Within the building, the island heritage exhibitions will include pictures and text on the slate quarries and their importance to the island and its people for 200 years. The material for this is being co-ordinated by Luing History Group and will build on the information featured on the popular outdoor interpretative panels that they prepared as part of the Nadair project in 2008.
When complete, the Atlantic Islands Centre and its exhibitions will provide a fitting acknowledgement of a key feature of the island’s heritage.
Around 12000 slates will be required to cover the roof of the new building and given the wastage that results from utilising reclaimed slate, some 24000 – 36000 second hand slates would need to be sourced to provide adequate usable slates. While it would obviously be commendable to utilise Luing slates there is no single source for this quantity. In any event it is difficult to identify a Luing slate from any other Scottish/West Highland slate so there is no way of telling if a reclaimed slate was quarried on Luing. It could equally have been quarried in Ballachulish, Balvicar, Easdale, Islay, Jura, Aberfoyle etc. Furthermore if a sufficient quantity of consistent, good quality West Highland slate could be obtained, these slates would then not be available to roof a historic or listed building. In terms of both sustainability and conservation this is not good practice.
The statement goes on to quote from Historic Scotland’s Managing Change document concluding that “even existing buildings may require to make use of some new natural slates. Again, to ensure that the limited supply of existing reclaimed slates is not unnecessarily depleted, it is considered good practice to use new slate on new buildings supplied by a recognised, certified quarry to ensure quality and consistency.
Additionally, the loLCT is under an obligation to the funders to maintain the building for at least 20 years. This will be achieved by ensuring that all materials used are suitable for the climate and exposure, meet current British & European Standards, and are generally fit for purpose. Second hand slate does not conform to any British or European standard and no contractor can guarantee its performance.
The proposed slate is guaranteed for 100 years and is particularly suited to the severe exposure of the west coast of Scotland. It comes from a single quarry ensuring that colour and quality is consistent. Its size, thickness and most importantly appearance, Page 170
including small flecks of iron pyrites, make it the best choice to compare with a West Highland Slate.
The publication, Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes, also notes ‘if new slate is needed to make up a shortfall, it should be laid in the same way…’
Diverse traditions of slate-laying, influenced by various materials and local conditions, are evident throughout the country. Some were laid in diminishing courses using regular width slates, some were laid in regular courses using random width slates; steep roofs on public buildings were roofed differently from small cottages in rural areas. Cost was a factor along with availability and local slating methods.
Using HS’s guidance for historic and listed buildings, the AIC roofs will be laid in regular courses using regular width slates. The roofs in Cullipool village’s cottages were roofed with left-over slates, generally small and similar in size as the large good quality slates were sold. Diminishing courses are not a particular feature of the area.
To protect our historic environment on Luing, in Argyll and throughout Scotland the sustainable, responsible choice must be to use new slates to roof the Atlantic Islands Centre”.
Statement on Availability of Reclaimed West Highland Slate by MacLeod Construction
“MacLeod Construction Ltd is Principal Contractor for the above project.
The Atlantic Islands Centre requires in the region of 12,000 slates to cover the 2 main roofs. If reclaimed West Highland slates were to be used we would, because of the level of wastage, require to source 24-36,000 reclaimed slates to cover the same area.
Reclaimed slates are supplied in crates of 1000, and it is currently not possible to obtain 36 crates from a single source. Even if this quantity was available, the slates within each crate would be of differing quality, colour, thickness and size, and will have originated from a variety of different quarries.
Each individual slate would require to be checked for quality, dressed, sized and holed before being installed on the roof.
While we have a stockpile of local slate in our stores, and can source small quantities from accredited suppliers, our company policy is to retain these for use on existing buildings where we require to match the existing.
We would be unable to offer any guarantees in relation to the life span of the reclaimed slates.
To provide a roof that looks like West Highland slates, is of high quality and has a guaranteed life span of 75-100 years, we would agree that the proposed slate is the best material for the building”.
Page 171 Page 172
This page is intentionally left blank Page 173 Agenda Item 7
Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______
Reference No : 14/01391/PP
Planning Hierarchy : Local Development
Applicant : Mrs Joan Adamson
Proposal : Variation of condition 9 of planning permission 12/02792/PP (Erection of a building to be used in part as a cookery school, including facilitating works and installation of 2,000 litre calor gas tank, partly retrospective) – change of operating hours at Corrie Cook School
Site Address : Corrie House, Craobh Haven, Lochgilphead ______
DECISION ROUTE
(i) Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Variation of planning condition 9 relative to permission reference 12/02792/PP relating to opening hours to allow the amendment to operate from 9am – 5pm to 9am - 11pm ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the application is refused subject to the reasons listed below. ______
(C) HISTORY:
11/00342/PP – Alterations to dwellinghouse to enlarge existing windows and doors, granted 20.04.2011.
11/02410/PP – Demolition of garage and erection of replacement garage/games room/studio – Withdrawn
12/02332/PP – Demolition of garage and erection of replacement garage and greenhouse - Invalid application, and as applicant decided not to proceed with this it was returned.
Page 174
12/01761/PP – considered just prior to this application, being the retrospectively sought separate application for the change of use of the dwellinghouse to guest house and new partial change in roof covering – granted.
12/02792/PP - Erection of a building to be used in part as a cookery school, including facilitating works and installation of 2,000 litre calor gas tank, partly retrospective - Approved
13/02371/NMA - Non material amendment to Planning Permission 12/02792/PP (Erection of a building to be used in part as domestic double garage/workshop and in part as a cookery school, including facilitating works and installation of 2,000 litre calor gas tank (partly retrospective) - Amendment to roof line, installation of additional door, amendment to toilet windows and deletion of one internal door – Withdrawn
13/02685/NMA - Non material amendment to Planning Permission 12/02792/PP (Erection of a building to be used in part as domestic double garage/workshop and in part as a cookery school, including facilitating works and installation of 2,000 litre calor gas tank (partly retrospective) - Amendment to roof line, amendment to glazing, installation of additional door, amendment to toilet windows and deletion of one internal door – Permitted
14/00755/NMA - Non material amendment to Planning Permission 12/02792/PP (Erection of a building to be used in part as domestic double garage/workshop and in part as a cookery school, including facilitating works and installation of 2,000 litre calor gas tank (partly retrospective).) Amended site layout (revision to approved plan 8/8 of application reference 12/02792/PP) Amended parking layout - Permitted ______
(D) CONSULTATIONS:
Area Roads Manager Report dated 18/06/2014 The Area Roads Manager has not raised any concerns relative to the proposal.
Public Protection Unit Memo dated 17/06/2014 Environmental Health has advised that the proposal lies within a quiet residential area. They consider it unreasonable to operate a commercial business in an (otherwise) residential area up to 11pm for 7-days a week. Therefore, EH object to the application to vary the operating hours.
Craignish Community Council Consultation issued 07/07/2014 as per request, however no response received and unable to agree an extension of time beyond 28/07/2014. ______
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in terms of regulation 20, closing date 18/07/2014. ______
Page 175
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
Mr Malcolm Kirk, Achnandarroch, Craobh Haven, Lochgilphead, PA31 8UA (23/06/2014, 01/07/2014, 07/07/2014)
(i) Summary of issues raised
• Concerns over the land ownership claims within the application forms.
Comment: Issues of land ownership are a civil matter between the affected parties. However, as a matter of course the planning department requested clarification in writing from the applicant to confirm the ownership details are correct – the applicant has subsequently provided confirmation by e-mail that they consider the certification contained with application submission to be correct.
• Considers that the cook school opening until such late hours would be unacceptable in a rural residential area.
Comment: This is assessed in detail in appendix A below. ______
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: No
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:
(iii) A design or design/access statement: No
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ______
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ______
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
Page 176
Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002
STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control
Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009
LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 10 – Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LP BUS 1 – Business and Industry Proposals in Existing Settlements LP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development LP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Systems LP SERV 4 – Water Supply LP TRAN 4 – New and Existing Public Roads and Private Access Regimes LP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision Appendix C – Access and Parking Standards
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
SPP, Scottish Planning Policy, 2014 ______
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ______
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ______
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______
(O) Requirement for a hearing: No ______
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
The site is located within the settlement boundary of Craobh Haven as per the adopted Local Plan maps. Policy STRAT DC 1 of the Structure Plan is generally supportive of appropriate development within the defined settlement boundary. The proposal is seeking to extend the operating hours of an already existing business, the Corrie Cook School.
The cook school was approved under planning application reference 12/02792/PP. A condition of this permission limited the hours of operation to 9am to 5pm, however this
Page 177
application is seeking to amend this condition to operate between the hours of 9am to 11pm.
The proposal has been assessed against policies LP BAD 1 and LP BUS 1. It is considered that operating to such times represents a ‘bad neighbour’ development and as such unacceptable in this quiet residential area.
There has been a single third party representation objecting on the grounds of inaccurate plans, land ownership, appropriate land use and inappropriate extension of hours. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have objected to the proposal on grounds that the late night working is unacceptable to neighbouring properties.
With the above in mind the application is recommended for refusal for the reason stated below. ______
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______
(R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be refused
The proposal to amend the approved hours of operations from 9am – 5pm to 9am – 11pm would result in the existing cook school qualifying as a ‘bad neighbour’ development as defined under the terms of Schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992. With this in mind the application has been assessed against Local Plan policy LP BAD 1. Under the terms of this policy the application needs to consider potential disturbance to neighbouring properties. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have provided comments objecting to the development. In this regard the extended opening hours would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties arising from noise from visiting vehicular traffic, opening and closing of doors, voices and disturbance from ventilation extractor fans all at a time when individuals should expect to be able to relax and enjoy their property including the garden areas. It should also be noted that the proposal needs to be considered against policy LP BUS 1 criterion ‘c’ in which developments should not erode the character of the residential area or adversely impact on local residents through an increase in traffic levels, noise, fumes or hours of operation. In this instance it is the consideration of Officers that the proposed extension of operating hours would have a significant and unacceptable adverse impact on local residents and the character of the area through late night noise and general disturbance. Therefore the proposal is not considered consistent with the provisions of policies LP BUS 1 and LP BAD 1. ______
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
N/A ______
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______
Page 178
Author of Report: David Love Date: 06/08/2014
Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 07/08/2014
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Page 179
GROUNDS OF REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/01391/PP
The proposal to amend the approved hours of operations from 9am – 5pm to 9am – 11pm would result in the existing cook school qualifying as a ‘bad neighbour’ development as defined under the terms of Schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992. With this in mind the application has been assessed against Local Plan policy LP BAD 1. Under the terms of this policy the application needs to consider potential disturbance to neighbouring properties. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have provided comments objecting to the development. In this regard the extended opening hours would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties arising from noise from visiting vehicular traffic, opening and closing of doors, voices and disturbance from ventilation extractor fans all at a time when individuals should expect to be able to relax and enjoy their property including the garden areas. It should also be noted that the proposal needs to be considered against policy LP BUS 1 criterion ‘c’ in which developments should not erode the character of the residential area or adversely impact on local residents through an increase in traffic levels, noise, fumes or hours of operation. In this instance it is the consideration of Officers that the proposed extension of operating hours would have a significant and unacceptable adverse impact on local residents and the character of the area through late night noise and general disturbance. Therefore the proposal is not considered consistent with the provisions of local plan policies LP BUS 1 and LP BAD 1.
Page 180
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01391/PP
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Settlement Strategy
The site is located within the settlement boundary of Craobh Haven as per the adopted Local Plan maps. Policy STRAT DC 1 of the Structure Plan is generally supportive of appropriate development within the defined settlement boundary. However, this proposal does not propose to build anything. It is seeking to extend the operating hours of an already existing business, the Corrie Cook School.
The cook school was approved under planning application reference 12/02792/PP and consisted of:
• Erection of building to be used in part as domestic ‘double garage/workshop’ and in part of a ‘cook school’ (partly retrospective in so much as the foundations and floor slab had been laid) • Facilitating works involving ground engineering works (creation of excavated flat site) and timber faced/steel braced feature training wall (all retrospective), and • Installation of 2,000 litre Calor gas tank (retrospective)
Other works included connection to public services.
As part of this approval condition 9 restricted the use of the cook school to those not resident at Corrie House to the hours of 09:00 to 17:00. This application seeks to vary this condition to allow for the operation of the cook school to non-residents of the Corrie Guest House to 09:00 – 23:00.
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
The cook school is located within a quiet, picturesque residential area of only a handful of dwellings. The area is located away from the main settlement and accessed from the Lunga road. There are a number of fairly large houses within this area which is generally characterised by mature trees and vegetation.
The main house, within whose grounds the cook school is situated, is a large property with planning permission to operate as a guest house. There is a large visitor’s car parking area as you enter the grounds of the property with the cook school in the north eastern corner. Non residents using the cook school park in the western driveway in forward gear and exit via the eastern driveway. Corrie House is a commercial guest house providing for 3 en-suite bedrooms. It is not unusual to have an operating commercial guest house within a quiet residential area such as this; Corrie House was initially designed as a large private dwellinghouse, subsequently operated as a small two bed and breakfast guesthouse (which did not require express planning permission) and has only recently required a formal change of use in light of the use of a third bedroom for letting purposes.
The siting of this building is within the extensive garden grounds of Corrie House guesthouse. Its approximate distance from the forward most part of Corrie House is 20m and from Achnandarrach, the nearest property and located north east, is 21m. There are no other properties nearby that would be affected by the operation of the cook school. However, other properties could be impacted upon by visiting vehicular traffic
Page 181
which would otherwise have no reason to utilise this stretch of private road serving Corrie House and the small number of adjacent residential properties.
The cook school itself is a pitch roofed rectangular building with a smaller double garage on the northern side. It is single storey with an eaves height of 2.4m and a ridge height of 5.6m. It is vertically timber clad and clearly ancillary to the main house. From the original planning application it is used by guests staying at Corrie House and visitors from between 9am and 5pm and can accommodate a maximum of 6-8 guests at any one time. It is not limited in its use by guests of Corrie House.
Since the cook school was originally approved the applicant has sought various non material amendments. The first was to alter the design of the building whilst the second to amend the parking layout. Neither raised significant any material planning considerations and were duly approved.
The applicant has provided a supporting statement detailing that they currently employ 3 full time staff but it is not known if this includes the owners or not. They have a client base consisting of people that live in the surrounding areas including Seil and Mull. Guest chefs from across the country are providing cookery lessons and demonstrations. The applicant feels that in order to fully grow the business they need to operate classes until 9pm with the remaining time used for cleaning and tidying the cook school.
C. Built Environment
Policy LP BUS 1 is generally supportive of new businesses in the settlement zones as delineated by the Local Plan maps. It was partly on this basis that the cook school was originally approved. However, section ‘c’ of this policy considers that:
“In residential locations the proposed development would not erode the residential character of the area, or adversely affect local residents, through an increase in traffic levels, noise, fumes or hours of operation ”
In the original application the applicant demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely impact on traffic by providing 7 car parking spaces from the western driveway with cars parked in forward gear and able to drive round the semi-circular driveway without interfering with the guest house parking or the ability of the guest house to operate. The original report of handling states that the proposal was considered acceptable partly due to the applicant’s proposed restricted hours of operation – which were then secured via condition 9 of the original permission. This restricted the impact on neighbouring properties in terms of early and late departures of a sizeable group of people and the impact this could have on the residential amenity of the area. There has been no change in material circumstances in the area that would warrant a consideration to amend these hours of operation and no argument put forward by the applicant for consideration.
With the above in mind the proposal to extend the hours of operation to non residents of the guest house is not consistent with policy LP BUS 1 section ‘c’ in that it could have an unacceptable impact on local residents. It is considered that the potential early arrivals and late departures in large groups would unacceptably disturb neighbours and adversely affect the character of the residential area.
Page 182
D. Bad Neighbour
The proposal qualifies the cook school as a bad neighbour development under the terms of schedule 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 as it is seeking operating times outwith 8am – 8pm in a residential area.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officers responded to the application advising that they considered it unreasonable for a business in a residential area to operate to the unsociable hour of 11pm. In this instance it is considered that as the development is located within a quiet, low density residential development that the arrival or departure of a substantial group outwith normal business hours would be likely to give rise to a significant loss of amenity to adjacent property having regard to the noise which might arise from this activity on a regular basis. Currently guests staying at Corrie House have no restriction on using the cook school. The issue is with non-residents travelling to and arriving/departing from a quiet residential location for a commercial activity that they would not otherwise be accessing during unsociable hours. With this in mind Environmental Health has objected to the proposal on the basis of disturbance to the amenity of adjacent residential properties.
Environmental Health’s original response to the initial cook school application did not raise any objections but rather referred to concerns relating to water supply and the potential impacts on neighbours relating to dust, noise, odours etc. At no point did the application operating hours raise any concern given that the applicant advised at that time within their supporting information that the development was intended to operate between the hours of 10am and 4pm. The provisions of condition 9, which were imposed upon the consent, were derived from the information provided by the applicant and in fact provided greater scope for operating than originally sought. The report of handling which accompanies the original grant of planning permission also acknowledges that Corrie House is a commercial guesthouse and that there may already be a limited degree of disturbance/activity during later hours which arises from the use of the grounds of Corrie House by its owners/residents and accordingly the provisions of condition 9 specifically seeks to preclude the potential for additional disturbance to the surrounding residential area which might arise from the non-residents arriving/departing outwith normal business hours.
The current proposal qualifies the cook school as a potential bad neighbour development requiring assessment under Local Plan policy LP BAD 1. Criterion ‘a’ of this policy states that “Development will only be permitted where” …“(a) There are no unacceptable adverse effects on the amenity of neighbouring residents;”
In this instance the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have raised concern that the proposal will have a significant adverse effect on neighbouring residential properties and the general amenity of the area. In order to access the cook school, patrons will require to utilise a short section of private road which they would not otherwise have reason to access, and this, in addition to vehicles being started and doors being slammed/closed within a generally quiet area at unsociable hours could give rise to significant disturbance to the established amenity of the locale. During the evenings, neighbouring properties residents would expect to be able to enjoy the amenity of their property, including their gardens depending on the weather, and enjoy the peace and quiet of what is a low density residential development on the edge of the Craobh Haven settlement. Any noise from traffic movements, vehicles being started, car doors closing/slamming associated with a group leaving the property at the same time, would disturb residents. Later in the evening, residents would be getting ready for bed and
Page 183
sleeping. It is considered that some disturbance during the daytime is acceptable given that people are often at work or enjoying activities during this time, whereas in the evening they expect to be able to enjoy the peace of this quiet rural area without the coming and going of individuals and cars that would not otherwise be visiting the area if not for the late night openings hours of the cook school. The noise mentioned above plus any talking outside between customers and/or staff as they arrive/depart the commercial premises at unsociable hours could disturb nearby residents who are likely to find this unacceptable given the generally quiet nature of this residential area. Environmental Health Officers have specifically advised that they:
“...consider it unreasonable to operate a commercial business in an (otherwise) residential area up to 11pm and for 7 days a week and would therefore object the proposed change in operating hours due to the potential impact on residential amenity .”
This stance is agreed by the planning department.
The applicant considers that they might need to close should the application to extend the opening hours be refused. However, they have managed to employ three members of staff and operate a successful business under the terms of the existing opening hours. It is therefore not considered, with the submission as it stands, that the existing situation of the business would unduly suffer with the existing opening hours.
Given that the proposal will have the potential to adversely impact on the residential amenity of the area and cause disturbance to neighbours the proposal is not consistent with policy LP BAD 1.
E. Other Matters
A query has been raised by a third party regarding land ownership. The query relates to the submission by the applicant that they own all of the land relating to the application site boundary. The third party claims that the land ownership map is wrong by some 7m.
Although matters of land ownership are a civil matter it is the council’s procedure to request the applicant to confirm in writing that the submitted details are correct. This is aimed at reducing the potential of judicial reviews against a planning permission and the potential to be drawn into civil matters of land ownership queries. In this instance the applicant has provided confirmation that the land ownership certification which accompanies their application is correct. It should be noted however that this is for information purposes only and is not a material planning consideration. The third party has been advised of this.
Page 184
This page is intentionally left blank Page 185 Page 186
This page is intentionally left blank Page 187 Agenda Item 8
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______
Reference No : 14/01602/PP
Planning Hierarchy : Local Development
Applicant : Mr Steven Cameron
Proposal : Demolition of Existing Building and Erection of Maritime Visitors Facility and Associated Works including Provision of New Public Realm Works
Site Address : White Building, North Pier, Oban ______
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Demolition of building; • Erection of maritime visitors facility;
• Public realm works comprising:
• Resurfacing of access road to proposed maritime visitor facility using porphyry paving setts; • Resurfacing of pavements using a mix of porphyry paving panels and granite paving slabs; • Relocation of pedestrian crossing further east on George Street; • Provision of timber seating; • Provision of granite litter bins; • Provision of lighting columns; • Cleaning of seawall; • Painting of balustrades on seawall. ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. ______
Page 188
(C) HISTORY:
N/A ______
(D) CONSULTATIONS:
Area Roads Manager Report dated 15/07/14 advising no objection to the proposed development but advising that details of all public realm works are to be agreed with Development and Infrastructure prior to commencement of works on site. They have also advised that a Road Construction Consent will be required.
Trunk Roads Authority Report dated 18/07/14 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency Letters dated 27/07/2014 SEPA object to the proposal on the basis of lack of information regarding flood risk. The matter has been referred back to the applicant and after discussion, it has been indicated informally that SEPA are likely to withdraw their objection prior to the date of the committee. An update will be made by means of supplementary report prior to the committee meeting. If this issue is not resolved before the committee meeting, the application will require to be continued.
Oban Disability Forum and Access Panel 27/07/14 advising they are supportive of the proposal but request a further two weeks to examine the detailed proposals to allow comment on access and details which will permit free movement. Also request that loss of parking and parking layout be re- examined by the Roads Authority.
Comment: These comments are noted. The detailed arrangements have been examined as part of the planning assessment and are found to be acceptable. There is no reason to hold back the determination of the application for the extended period requested.
Environmental Health Unit Memo dated 28/07/2014. Confirm no objections in terms of demolition of the White Building. In terms of potential impacts on existing businesses, request further information regarding waste storage, servicing, vehicular access arrangements and affect on pedestrian/vehicular conflict, and issues relating to the hosting of public events: food vendors, noise impact, toilet provision and public accessibility to such toilets. These matters have been referred back to the applicant and it is expected that sufficient information will be to hand and an update will be made by means of supplementary report prior to the committee meeting. If the issues are not resolved before the committee meeting, the application could be continued or additional suspensive planning conditions could be recommended.
Conservation Officer No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time.
Building Standards Unit No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time.
Page 189
Marine and Airport Manager No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time.
Oban Community Council No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. ______
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in terms of Listed Building procedures, closing date 31/07/14. ______
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
22 representations have been received of which 16 take the form of a pre-printed letter regarding the future of employment within the North Pier restaurants, to which names and addresses have been added.
The MacLeod’s, Ee-usk, North Pier, Oban, PA34 5QD (08/07/14) John MacGregor, Chairman, OBML (By e-mail 10/07/14) Alastair Knox (by e-mail 14/07/14) Miss Odile Francois, Flat 1, Glenquiach House, 40 Ardconnel Terrace, Oban, PA34 5DJ (17/07/14) Andrew Campbell, 17 Combie Court, Oban, PA34 4BY (17/07/14) Lorna M. Young, 3 Lorne Terrace, Miller Road, Oban, PA34 4DX (17/07/14) Jade McMahon, 7 Mull Terrace, Oban (17/07/14) Kamil Brozek, The Greens, Oban, PA34 4DD (17/07/14) Hollie MacLeod, 55 Pulpit Road, Oban, PA34 4LF (17/07/14) Jamie MacRae, 7d Colonsay Terrace, Soroba, Oban (17/07/14) Monica Maringil, Bracklynn, Glenmore Road, Oban, PA34 4ND (18/07/14) Kimberley MacNiven, 2C Corran Brae, Dunollie, Oban, PA34 5AL (18/07/14) Shannen Lair McMahon, Flat 8, The Greens, Glencruitten Road, Oban (18/07/14) Kirsty Smith, Valkyrie, 31 Pulpit Drive, Oban, PA34 4LE (18/07/14) Abby MacKenzie, 1 Aray Gardens, Oban (18/07/14) Gibson J. Mwaponda, 8E Scalpay Terrace, Oban, PA34 4JH (18/07/14) Eilidh Livingstone, Sealladh Briagha, Taynuilt, PA35 1JQ (18/07/14) Caitlin Burgar, 34F McCaig Road, Soroba Road, Oban (18/07/14) Alex Bichener, Thornloe, Albert Road, Oban, PA34 5EJ (18/07/14) Mr George Campbell, Flat 3, Strathaven Terrace, Breadalbane Street, Oban, PA34 5PE (19/07/14) ECS Transport Planning Limited on behalf of Ee-usk Restaurant, Titanium 1, Kings Inch Place, Renfrew, PA4 8WF (23/07/14) Mr Ian Reid, 2 Firgrove, Ardconnel Road, Oban, PA34 5DW (13/07/14)
Summary of issues raised
• Happy with the principle of the proposal, its design concept is to be commended.
Comment: This is noted.
• In spite of pre-application meetings concerns raised by third parties have not been addressed.
Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. The pre-application consultation that was undertaken was voluntary Page 190
and not as a result of a statutory requirement that may have applied had the proposals constituted ‘major developments’ under the government’s national hierarchy of developments.
• The proposal will restrict access and traffic to the rear of the restaurants for all necessary purposes as permitted in a lease agreement. Emergency service vehicles will also be unable to access the rear of the restaurants.
Comment: The terms of the lease agreement are a civil matter between the affected parties. Pedestrian access will remain, as will a route for service vehicles to the rear of the buildings. Parking which has taken place in association with these businesses to the rear of the restaurant buildings is not provided for in the lease and conflicts with yellow line parking restrictions. Vehicular access to the restaurants will continue to be available to the front.
• The proposed building will prevent traffic circulating through the car park.
Comment: The Area Roads Engineer has raised no objection with regard to the implications of the development for the circulation of traffic within the car park. It is expected that further detail will be provided by the Roads Engineer in support of their position prior to the committee meeting and that will be included within the supplementary report.
• Exposure of the restaurants will be significantly reduced due to a masking effect of the new build.
Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. In any event the provision of a covered public space will be likely to attract visitors to congregate in the vicinity of surrounding businesses.
• The flow of pedestrian traffic to the restaurants will be inhibited, especially if an event is being hosted.
Comment: It is considered that the proposed development allows for the free flow of pedestrians. Public events at the North Pier will increase the footfall and may in fact increase trade at nearby premises.
• The application may impact on the future employment of staff within the North Pier restaurants.
Comment: It is not considered that the development will jeopardise the viability of adjoining businesses for the reasons given above.
• The port waste facility, whilst showing as indicative, is unacceptable in visual and amenity terms.
Comment: Given it is indicative the appearance is not yet finalised and therefore comment cannot be made with regard to the acceptability or otherwise of its appearance. Concern over the finished appearance is however shared by the planning assessment and it is recommended that it be controlled via a suspensive planning condition.
• The proposal will prevent maintenance works to the restaurants.
Comment: It is not clear how the proposal would prevent maintenance works to the restaurants as suggested given the access which remains. The project has been Page 191
designed with space that allows for maintenance to the rear of the existing restaurants.
• Supporting the development in general. Concerns raised regarding the amount of space devoted to marine visitor services as these are a minority group and the area devoted to such a use will be much less used than the area devoted to cultural community/tourist activities. It is suggested that if there are any adjustments to be made, the area devoted to cultural activities should increase.
Comment: This is noted. However, the submission that has been made is for a maritime focused facility. The North Pier in Oban is eminently acceptable in principle for such a development, being at the heart of the port town and in a coastal location in close proximity to the town centre. By contrast, cultural community and tourist activities can be catered for across a wider area and need not require a location so close to the coast. In any case, the event space that forms part of this project will facilitate a community and tourism function, which is also judged to be an acceptable use for this multi-purpose space.
• Concerns that traffic may be encouraged to use the pier, as the access between the Columba Hotel and Eeusk/Piazza restaurants can no longer be used. Bollards should be introduced to ensure that only authorised users can access the pier frontage.
Comment: The Area Roads Engineers have confirmed they are content both in terms of the application proposal, and its implications for surrounding uses and vehicle circulation, and they are expected to provide more detail as to why they form that view. Such detail will be included in a supplementary report prior to the committee meeting.
• The circular design of the covered area is interesting but thought should be given to the inevitability of wind vortices within the structure and the entrapment of litter otherwise this could become an eyesore for a high maintenance feature.
Comment: This is noted and will be a point for consideration in the ongoing maintenance of the building/space by the Council .
• Thought should be given to maximising the transparent area of the canopy to maximise light penetration as a deterrent to undesirable activities, especially in the small hours.
Comment: This has been noted, however, the design has been finalised by the project team following consultation with third parties, and needs to be determined as applied for.
The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess . ______
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the applicat ion been the subject of:
(i) Planning Statement Yes
Page 192
In summary the planning statement states:
“This planning application relates to one of the component elements of the proposed Oban Bay Regeneration proposals. The masterplan that accompanies this application sets out the context of the different proposals and defines three separate although interlinked planning applications that will tie the Maritime Visitor Facility through public realm improvements to the transport hub around Station Square to the south.
The proposed developments in their entirety will significantly improve the visitor experience to Oban and considerably enhance the existing townscape. The aim is to provide a more welcoming visitor experience, through improved public realm, improved accessibility, improved movement and connectivity, improved seating and view points and the new maritime visitor facility that will provide a meeting space and venue for different events as well as providing accommodation and office space for different user groups.
In summary, the proposed development is consistent with the Council’s regeneration aims of improving the physical environment within the CHORD towns and the Council’s wider aims of improving the tourist and visitor experience as well as ensuring that the main town centres within Argyll and Bute are attractive for locals as well as visitors. The proposed development does not conflict with these wider aims”.
(ii) Design and Access Statement Yes
In summary the design and access statement sets out the context for the proposed development and how the design was reached. It states:
“Purpose built, state of the art accommodation will meet the technical requirements of the development brief. This accommodation will ‘frame’ a new public space – flexible, multi-functional, a new heart to Oban. Exciting contemporary design will ensure that the space is always attractive and welcoming, when empty, or when bustling full.
The space will be circular. An echo of McCaigs Tower, perhaps, but also an appropriate form and location from which Oban, past and future, will radiate.
The walls that enclose and frame the space will be sculpted to offer shelter, a place to site, to rest a while, to picnic, to enjoy.
Redevelopment will add significant value to Oban, above and beyond the requirements of the brief.
The space will be sheltered by a beautifully crafted timber and glass canopy roof, designed for respite and protection from the rain but also to admit daylight throughout and into the heart of the proposal.
The canopy will be light, airy and protective, a fitting, welcoming place for Oban. Robust and durable construction will create an aesthetic that is both civic and appropriately pragmatic to cope with the bustle of the working and potentially expanding pier”.
The above represents a summary of the documents. Full details are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess ______Page 193
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
(i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ______
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control STRAT DC 9 – Historic Environment and Development Control STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan‘ 2009
LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 13a – Development Impact on Listed Buildings LP ENV 13b – Demolition of Listed Buildings LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LP TOUR 1 – Tourist Facilities and Accommodation, including Caravans LP SERV 8 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development LP TRAN 1 – Public Access and Rights of Way LP TRAN 4 – New and Existing Public Roads and Private Access Regimes LP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision LP COM 1 – Community Facility Development Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Appendix C – Access and Parking Standards
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
Argyll & Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), 2011 Emerging Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, 2014 Planning Advice Note 69 ______
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ______
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ______Page 194
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: Yes
The Council owns the site subject of the application. ______
(O) Requirement for a hearing: No
In deciding whether to exercise the Council’s discretion to hold a discretionary hearing, the following are of significance:
• How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process.
• The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations together with the relative size of community affected set against the relative number of representations, and their provenance.
Sixteen of the objections take the form of a pro forma relating to the future of employment within the North Pier restaurants.
In this case, it is not considered that the application raises any complex or technical issues and it is not considered that a hearing would add value to the process and therefore Members should exercise their discretion and decline to undertake a hearing prior to the application being determined. ______
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
Planning permission is sought for demolition of the White Building and erection of the Oban Maritime Visitor Facility. The White Building is physically attached to the Columba Hotel and is included within the text describing the Category B listed Columba Hotel building.
The proposal subject of this application forms part of a suite of applications forming the wider Oban Bay Regeneration project. The masterplan accompanying the application sets out the context of the proposals and defines three separate but interlinked proposals which will tie the proposed Maritime Visitor Facility through public realm improvements to the transport hub around Station Square to the south.
In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, the site is within the main settlement of Oban where Policy STRAT DC 1 of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ gives encouragement of development serving a wide community of interest, subject to compliance with other relevant policies.
Policy LP ENV 13(a) seeks to ensure development affecting a listed building or its setting shall preserve the building or its setting with Policy LP ENV 13(b) only supporting total or substantial demolition of a listed building where it is demonstrated that every effort been exerted to find practical ways of keeping it.
Page 195
Policy LP ENV 19 requires development to be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located and that development layout and density shall integrate with the setting of surrounding development with Policy LP ENV 1 assessing applications for their impact on the natural, human and built environment.
Policy LP COM 1 and LP TOUR 1 establish a presumption in favour of new or improved community facilities and tourist facilities, provided that they respect the landscape character and amenity of the surrounding area, are readily accessible by public transport where available and are located close to where people live.
In addition to the above, the proposal also has to be assessed for compliance with other relevant local plan policies which are detailed in Appendix A of this report.
The proposal has elicited 22 representations from local residents with a mix of support and objection.
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and represents a significant visual enhancement of the townscape within this part of the town centre, which is to be welcomed, as well as providing a focal point for visitors along with facilities associated with the maritime function of the North Pier.
On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and to accord with the relevant Development Plan policies and it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions appended to this report. ______
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ______
(R) Reasons why planning permission should be granted
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and represents a significant visual enhancement of the townscape within this part of the town centre, which is to be welcomed, as well as providing a focal point for visitors along with facilities associated with the maritime function of the North Pier.
Having due regard to the above, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies STRAT DC 1, STRAT DC 8, STRAT DC 9 and STRAT SI 1 of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ and Policies LP COM 1, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 13a, LP ENV 13b, LP ENV 19, LP TOUR 1, LP TRAN 1, LP TRAN 4 and LP TRAN 6 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’.
Furthermore there are no other material considerations, including issues raised by third parties, which would warrant anything other than the application being determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan. ______
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
N/A ______
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______
Page 196
Author of Report: Fiona Scott Date: 12/08/14
Reviewing Officer: Stephen Fair Date: 12/08/14
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Page 197
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/01602/PP
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 26/06/14 and the approved drawing reference numbers:
Plan 1 of 28 Plan 2 of 28 Plan 3 of 28 Plan 4 of 28 Plan 5 of 28 Plan 6 of 28 Plan 7 of 28 Plan 8 of 28 Plan 9 of 28 Plan 10 of 28 Plan 11 of 28 Plan 12 of 28 Plan 13 of 28 Plan 14 of 28 Plan 15 of 28 Plan 16 of 28 Plan 17 of 28 Plan 18 of 28 Plan 19 of 28 Plan 20 of 28 Plan 21 of 28 Plan 22 of 28 Plan 23 of 28 Plan 24 of 28 Plan 25 of 28 Plan 26 of 28 Plan 27 of 28 Plan 28 of 28
unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the proposed Maritime Visitor Facility have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
3. Details of materials to be used within the Trunk Road boundary shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with the Roads Authority.
Page 198
Reason: On request of the Trunk Roads Authority: to ensure that the standard of construction is commensurate with that required within the road boundary. 4. Details of alterations to lighting within the Trunk Road boundary shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with the Roads Authority before works commence on site.
Reason: On request of the Trunk Roads Authority: to ensure the level of lighting and the standard of construction is commensurate with that required within the road boundary.
5. Details of alterations to the Trunk Road drainage system, to include relocation of gullies and alterations to kerb lines, shall be submitted for prior approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with the Roads Authority before works commence on site.
Reason: On request of the Trunk Roads Authority: to ensure that the efficiency of the existing drainage network is not affected and that the standard of construction is commensurate with that required within the road boundary.
6. Details of street furniture, decorative bollards, lighting columns and any additional signage within the Trunk Road boundary shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with the Roads Authority before works commence on site.
Reason: On request of the Trunk Roads Authority: to minimise interference with the safety and free flow of pedestrian traffic and ensure that the standard of construction is commensurate with that required within the road boundary.
7. Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the relocated bin store facility have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings.
Notes to Applicant
• This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period [See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).]
• In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act.
• In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed.
• Argyll and Bute Council Roads Services advise that all details must be agreed by them and that a Construction Consent is required before works proceed. Please contact the Roads Authority directly on 01546 605514 to discuss these requirements prior to commencing the development. Page 199
Page 200
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01602/PP
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Settlement Strategy
In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, the site is within the main settlement of Oban where Policy STRAT DC 1 of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ gives encouragement of development serving a wide community of interest, subject to compliance with other relevant policies.
Policy LP ENV 13(a) seeks to ensure development affecting a listed building or its setting shall preserve the building or its setting with Policy LP ENV 13(b) only supporting total or substantial demolition of a listed building where it is demonstrated that every effort been exerted to find practical ways of keeping it.
Policy LP ENV 19 requires development to be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located and that development layout and density shall integrate with the setting of surrounding development with Policy LP ENV 1 assessing applications for their impact on the natural, human and built environment.
Policy LP COM 1 and LP TOUR 1 establish a presumption in favour of new or improved community facilities and tourist facilities, provided that they respect the landscape character and amenity of the surrounding area, are readily accessible by public transport where available and are located close to where people live.
The proposal also has to be assessed for compliance with other relevant local plan policies.
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
Planning permission is sought for demolition of the White Building and erection of the Oban Maritime Visitor Facility. The White Building is physically attached to the Columba Hotel and is included in the text describing the Category B listed Columba Hotel building.
The proposal subject of this application forms part of a suite of applications forming the wider Oban Bay Regeneration project. The masterplan accompanying the application sets out the context of the proposals and defines three separate but interlinked proposals which will tie the proposed Maritime Visitor Facility through public realm improvements to the transport hub around Station Square to the south.
The site is in a prominent position within the main town centre of Oban. The application requires the demolition of the existing building to make way for a new facility, (subject to a separate listed building consent application elsewhere on the agenda) which will provide a multi-use space with the built elements of the proposal comprising:
• Pier office; • Enhanced public toilet and shower provision; • Secure locker facilities; • Storage and laundry; • Waiting area for coach parties and cruise ship passengers; • Public meeting and greeting/events space; • Relocated bin storage.
Page 201
The built elements of the proposal are to be sited adjacent to the west elevation of the Columba Hotel and east elevation of the Piazza and Ee-usk restaurants. The new structures are to be simple flat roofed structures with natural masonry and pre-cast masonry panelled wall finishes. A central circular open space incorporating a paved and bound gravel surface will be sheltered under a striking timber and glass canopy roof.
The proposed development will provide an appropriate landmark structure within this prominent location in the main town centre and will represent a significant visual enhancement of the townscape as well as improved facilities for visitors.
It is considered that the design and finish of the proposed development respects the site and will represent a significant visual improvement to the townscape within this area consistent with the terms of Policy LP ENV 19 and Appendix A. The design approach cleverly avoids any competition with the prominent restaurant buildings on the North Pier or the adjacent listed Columba Hotel.
Policy LP COM 1 establishes a presumption in favour of new or improved community facilities, provided that they respect the landscape character and amenity of the surrounding area, that they are readily accessible by public transport where available, cycling and on foot and are located close to where people live. Given the position of the site within the main town centre of Oban it is considered the proposed development complies with the terms of this policy.
In addition to the above the application also shows the regeneration of the public realm at the north pier. Works start to the west of the slipway on George Street extending along to the Oban Inn and encompassing the North Pier. Works proposed comprise:
• Resurfacing of access road to proposed Maritime Visitor Facility using porphyry paving setts; • Resurfacing of pavements using a mix of porphyry paving panels and granite paving slabs; • Relocation of pedestrian crossing further east on George Street; • Provision of timber seating; • Provision of granite litter bins; • Provision of lighting columns; • Cleaning of seawall; • Painting of balustrades on seawall.
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and represents a significant visual enhancement of the townscape within this part of the town centre which is to be welcomed.
C. Built Environment
The White Building is listed within the list description for the Columba Hotel, a category B listed building. The White Building itself is not the subject of the main listing but it is nonetheless listed by virtue of its inclusion within the description of the Columba Hotel listing.
The building is a large, flat roofed, single storey building of no individual architectural merit and following survey is recognised as being of poor visual and structural quality, especially when compared to the higher and more attractive main two parts of the Columba Hotel which are the focus of the listing in question.
A detailed structural survey has been submitted with the associated application for Listed Building Consent for its demolition. The survey identifies that the building is of an Page 202
aged, basic construction and is generally in a poor state of repair and would require significant financial investment to bring it up to a standard suitable for modern purposes.
Policy LP ENV 13(a) seeks to ensure development affecting a listed building or its setting shall preserve the building or its setting with Policy LP ENV 13(b) only supporting total or substantial demolition of a listed building where it is demonstrated that every effort been exerted to find practical ways of keeping it.
Whilst no evidence has been submitted in respect of the building having been actively marketed, it is considered that the condition survey identifies that the building is beyond economic repair and, in this instance, it is considered that sufficient justification has been submitted to warrant the demolition of this small part of the overall listed building to enable the wider regeneration of this area with the re-development scheme proposed.
In this instance it is considered that sufficient justification has been submitted in the associated application for Listed Building Consent to warrant the demolition of that part of the listed building. The re-development scheme proposed has been sympathetically designed incorporating a scale and material palette which will ensure that it does not compete with or detract from the setting of the remaining listed Columba Hotel. Indeed the setting is likely to be enhanced as a consequence of the demolition of the White Building and the re-development proposed.
D. Road Network, Parking and associated Transport Matters.
The application shows that existing vehicular routes around the North Pier will be maintained and these are able to accommodate large delivery vehicles, coaches and emergency vehicles, as per the existing situation. All areas directly between the Columba Hotel and the North Pier restaurants will be generally designated for pedestrian access only, with access remaining for servicing purposes by smaller vehicles.
The proposed development will result in the loss of 7 car parking spaces, however this loss may be reduced through a wider reconfiguration of the existing parking layout. Although the Roads Engineers have not objected to the application as submitted, both they and the applicant have been asked to provide further comment on parking provision, and their responses will form part of a supplementary report prior to the committee meeting.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the terms of Policies LP TRAN 1, LP TRAN 4 and LP TRAN 6 which seek to safeguard public rights of way and ensure that developments are served by an appropriate means of vehicular access and have a sufficient parking provision.
E. Flood Risk
The proposal lies within an area at risk of, and with a history of, coastal flooding and is therefore subject to the provisions of Local Plan policy LP SERV 4. This policy aims to reduce the risk of flooding to those developments at potential risk. The proposed development is on the North Pier where it is at risk of a 1 in 200 year coastal flood event. SEPA have objected to the proposal as submitted on the basis of a lack of information, which it is hoped can be furnished to enable them to withdraw their objection before the committee meeting. An update on this matter will be included within a supplementary report prior to the meeting. If the SEPA objection is not withdrawn before Members’ consideration of the application, it will be necessary for the application to be continued to allow any outstanding issues to be resolved to SEPA’s satisfaction.
Page 203 Page 204
This page is intentionally left blank Page 205 Agenda Item 9
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure ______
Reference No : 14/01603/LIB
Applicant : Mr Steven Cameron
Proposal : Demolition of Listed Building and Erection of Maritime Visitors Facility
Site Address : White Building, North Pier, Oban ______
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Listed Building Consent
• Demolition of building.
(ii) Other specified operations
• Erection of maritime visitors facility (subject of separate planning application). ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that, subject to clearance from Historic Scotland, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. ______
(C) HISTORY:
N/A ______
(D) CONSULTATIONS:
Historic Scotland No response and no request for extension of time received.
Environmental Health Unit No response and no request for extension of time received.
Oban Community Council No response and no request for extension of time received.
______
Page 206
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in terms of Listed Building procedures, closing date 31/07/14. ______
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
No representations have been received regarding the proposed development. ______
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Planning Statement Yes
In summary, the planning statement states:
“The proposed Oban Bay Regeneration Project developments, of which the demolition of the White Building and site redevelopment to provide a Maritime Visitor Facility is one, will together significantly improve the visitor experience to Oban and considerably enhance the existing townscape. The aim is to provide a more welcoming visitor experience, through improved public realm, improved accessibility, improvement movement and connectivity, improved seating and view points and the new maritime visitor facility that will provide a meeting space and venue for different events as well as providing accommodation and office space for different user groups.
It is strongly argued that there is sufficient justification to support the demolition of this structure and its replacement with the proposed OMVF. In terms of sustainable regeneration and economic and social wellbeing, as well as improvements to the local townscape, there is considerable merit in supporting the proposed development and demolition of the White Building…
In summary, the proposed development is consistent with the Council’s regeneration aims of improving the physical environment within the CHORD towns and the Council’s wider aims of improving the tourist and visitor experience as well as ensuring that the main town centres within Argyll and Bute are attractive for locals as well as visitors”.
(ii) Condition Survey Yes
In summary, the condition survey undertaken for the building states:
“The building is of an aged, basic construction and is generally in a poor state of repair. The condition of the structure supporting the roof deck and the roof deck itself, are the main areas of concern. There is extensive corrosion, delamination, lack of lateral restraint and failure of bearing ends to the primary and secondary beams which support the roof, together with temporary previous repairs (use of acrow props) to support the roof deck. We are also concerned by cracking and bowing to the external elevations, particularly the western elevation”.
The report sets out a programme of works required in the immediate to short term, with periodic maintenance and decoration being required on a cyclical basis thereafter. The report provides an initial budge cost for the recommended works at £ 436,000 excluding vat. Page 207
The above represents a summary of the documents. Full details are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess . ______
(H) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.
Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002
STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control STRAT DC 9 – Historic Environment and Development Control STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development
Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2009
LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 13a – Development Impact on Listed Buildings LP ENV 13b – Demolition of Listed Buildings LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
Argyll & Bute Sustainable Design Guidance (2006) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), 2011 ______
(I) Does the Council have an interest in the site: Yes
The Council own the building subject of the application. ______
(J) Requirement for a hearing: No ______
(K) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
Listed building consent is sought for demolition of the White Building to allow for erection of the Oban Maritime Visitor Facility. The White Building is physically attached to the Columba Hotel and falls within its listing description as a Category B listed building.
Listed building consent is not required for the proposed visitor facility as it does not form an extension to the Columba Hotel, it merely abuts it. The detailed proposals are subject to a separate application for planning permission reference 14/01602/PP which appears elsewhere on the agenda.
Page 208
The proposal subject of this application forms part of a suite of applications forming the wider Oban Bay Regeneration project.
In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, the site is within the main settlement of Oban where Policy STRAT DC 1 of the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ gives encouragement of development serving a wide community of interest, subject to compliance with other relevant policies.
Policy LP ENV 13(b) only supports total or substantial demolition of listed buildings where it has been demonstrated that every effort has been made to find practical ways of keeping them. This should be demonstrated by showing that the building has been actively marketed and by providing a structural condition report to show that the building is beyond economic repair and incapable of re-use for modern purposes.
The building is a large, flat roofed, single storey building of no particular architectural merit and is widely recognised as being of poor visual and structural quality. It contrasts markedly with the architecture of the adjacent Columba Hotel.
The statement submitted in support of the application states the “Demolition of the building is essential in enabling the Council to proceed with their wider regeneration plans for Oban town centre and waterfront. The White Building is of poor visual quality compared to the building that it is attached to, the Columba Hotel and, is listed only by virtue of its attachment to the hotel”.
A detailed condition survey (see Section G above) has been submitted in support of the application which identifies that the building is of an aged, basic construction and is generally in a poor state of repair and would require significant financial investment to bring it up to a standard suitable for modern purposes.
Whilst no evidence has been submitted in respect of the building having been actively marketed, it is considered that the condition survey identifies that the building is beyond economic repair and, in this instance, it is considered that sufficient justification has been submitted to warrant the demolition of the building to enable the wider regeneration of this area with the re-development scheme currently with this Service for consideration.
On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and to accord with the relevant Development Plan policies and it is recommended that, subject to clearance from Historic Scotland, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions appended to this report. ______
(L) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ______
(M) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: Yes
Requires clearance by Historic Scotland. ______
Author of Report: Fiona Scott Date: 01/08/14
Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 07/08/2014
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Page 209
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/01602/PP
1. That the development to which this permission relates must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended.
Page 210
This page is intentionally left blank Page 211 Page 212
This page is intentionally left blank Page 213 Agenda Item 10
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services
PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE - 20 August 2014 ______
UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS ______
A) INTRODUCTION
This report advises of recent appeal decisions by the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals relative to the three cases set out below.
B) RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the contents of the report.
C) DETAILS OF APPEAL DECISIONS
PLANNING APPEAL DECISION – PPA-130-2040 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF TWO 225KW WIND TURBINES (47.02 METRES TO BLADE TIP) AND ASSOCIATED METER HOUSES, FORMATION OF CRANE HARDSTANDINGS AND VEHICULAR ACCESS AT LAND WEST OF NEWTON PARK, TOWARD, DUNOON, ARGYLL AND BUTE, PA23 7UA DATE OF DECISION – 14 July 2014
Planning permission (13/00004/PP) was refused by Committee at a hearing on 22 January 2014. An appeal against the decision was dealt with by written representations and an accompanied site visit by a Reporter. The appeal was dismissed.
The Reporter concluded that appropriately sized turbines would not have an excessively adverse impact in the immediate vicinity of the proposal but that the proposed turbines, which are adjacent to an Area of Panoramic Quality, were of a scale and location that would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape within this designated area (particularly as viewed from Bute) and on the setting of the listed Toward Point Lighthouse. He considered the turbines’ contribution to renewable energy targets did not outweigh these landscape and historic environment concerns.
PLANNING APPEAL DECISION – PPA-130-2041 FAILURE TO GIVE A DECISION ON A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF CONDITION 9 ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 11/01915/PP: ERECTION OF ONE WIND TURBINE (77 METRES TO BLADE TIP) AND ASSOCIATED CRANE HARDSTANDING, CONTROL BUILDING, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AT GALLANACH, ISLE OF COLL, ARGYLL AND BUTE, PA78 6TE DATE OF DECISION – 4 TH July 2014
Planning permission (11/01915/PP) was granted by Committee subject to conditions at a discretionary hearing on 18 October 2012. The developer has since sought to discharge condition 9 (traffic management plan) with three different submissions, but has thus far Page 214
failed to address all issues to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority. Accordingly planning condition 9 has not been discharged. An appeal against the failure to discharge condition 9 was dealt with by written submissions and an unaccompanied site visit by a Reporter. The appeal was dismissed.
The Reporter concluded that the concerns identified by the Roads Authority, shared by the Planning Service and members of the community were valid. They relate largely to the contingency plans for emergencies or blockages to the lifeline island road. Those issues must be satisfactorily addressed before the condition can legitimately be discharged.
During the course of the appeal, objectors also requested that the Reporter reverse the entire planning permission. That request was also dismissed.
In dismissing the request, the Reporter concluded that “ just as the traffic management plan contains insufficient information to conclude that the construction traffic can be satisfactorily accommodated on the road without an unacceptable risk to the public (direct or indirect) through a blockage, it is not possible to conclude that no satisfactory arrangement can be put in place in a further iteration of the traffic management plan that takes full account of these issues .”
PLANNING APPEAL DECISION – PPA-130-2042 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR DEMOLITION OF GARAGE, ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AT 45 MOUNT STUART ROAD, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE DATE OF DECISION – 5 August 2014
Planning permission (13/02662/PP) was refused by Committee on 19 February 2014. An appeal against the decision was dealt with by written representations and an accompanied site visit by a Reporter. The appeal was dismissed.
The Reporter concluded that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building and that the location, siting and design of the proposed house would have little architectural or urban design logic.
D) IMPLICATIONS
Policy: None. Financial: None Personnel: None Equal Opportunities: None
Authors and Contact Officers: David Eaglesham (Tel: 01369 708608) Stephen Fair (Tel: 01631 567951)
6 August 2014
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
Page 215 Agenda Item 11
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services
PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE - 20 th August 2014 ______
Rothesay Windows – Project Highlight Report and Update ______
A) INTRODUCTION
This document provides an update on the Rothesay Windows Project.
The Project Plan was approved by PPSL on 21 st May 2014 and as part of the communication plan it was agreed that a Highlight Report would be prepared for the PPSL every 2 months.
B) RECOMMENDATION
Members are asked to note the content of this Highlight Report and asked to continue to support this project.
Members are asked to approve the Communication and Education strategy which is found at Appendix A.
C) IMPLICATIONS
Policy: Outcome of project shall be new technical guidance for dealing with window applications in Rothesay Conservation Area
Financial: No budget allocated to project. Being undertaking using operational resources
Personnel: None
Equal Opportunities: None
Author and Contact Officer: Ross McLaughlin, Development Manager
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
Page 216
Rothesay Windows Project
Project Update Report
Highlight Report - Overall Project Status Name of Document: Rothesay Windows Project
Author: Ross McLaughlin
Summary of progress from 21/05/14 to Description of Content: 07/08/14 Green
Planning, Protective Services and Licencing Distribution: Committee
Headlines • Project Inception Document Approved at PPSL Committee on 21 st May 2014 • Commencement of initial townscape block inspection works – focus on sea front thus far • Absence of B&C Technician (5 months) (returned to work on 10 th July)- Key resource for project • Enforcement Officer resignation on 28 th May (new potholder starts on 25 th August) – Key resource for project • Synergies of communication strategy identified with Campbeltown THI / CARS Project • Draft Communication and Education Strategy confirmed with Communications Team now for approval
Progress against Plan (taken from project plan) Key products/deliverables completed this period Site Assessment work to identify townscape blocks which have common characteristics within the Conservation Area has commenced but not complete due to resource pressure. Absence of Planning Technician and resignation of Enforcement Officer has had significant impact on small team and resource has been diverted to operational duties. The site work shall however be completed in September with no overall effect to project timescales Development of Draft Communications Strategy for PPSL Approval ( see attached Appendix ) Key products outstanding this period Revised delivery date Completion of Site Assessment Work By 19 th September Key products for next reporting period: Delivery date 20 Aug – 22 nd Oct 2014 Completion of Site Assessment Work By 19 th September Formulation of a Technical Note based on assessment October 2014 of each townscape block. Development of a uniform approach based on planning history / current windows, listing and specific block. Consideration given to what type of window replacement is acceptable in terms of material finish, glazing pattern, colour and method of opening.
Page 217
Rothesay Windows Project
Project Update Report
Deliver presentation to Bute Community Council on October 2014 window and CHORD / THI related matters Deliver Communications and Education Strategy Ongoing Budget No budget has been allocated to this project as existing officer resource is being utilised. The investigation into the provision of a workshop has however identified that previous guest presenters were paid for at a cost of around £2,000. This was previously delivered as part of education work and skills development fostered by CARS / THI Team. We are currently looking at alternative ways to deliver a workshop without a direct commission. Major Issues –
Officer resource has been major challenge over past 2 months due to long term absence and resignation of 2 members of B&C staff. Has had major impact on overall performance of this Team of 5. Both Officers have a role in gathering information as part of the assessment process and other team members have been diverted to deal with ongoing operational activities. It’s an improving situation as the Technician has now returned to duties and new Enforcement Officer Start’s end of August.
Major Risks – New/Changed
Risk Inherent inherent Inherent Mitigation Residual Residual Residual risk risk risk per Impact risk Matrix (Scored 1-4) impact (1- Probability matrix (1-3) (1-3) (1-3) 3) (1-3) (1-9)
Lack of engagement and Seek early and buy in by Elected Members ensure ongoing result in council failing to 3 2 6 discussions with 3 1 3 deliver new guidance and PPSL and B&C Area reviews Committee PID identifies Failure to free up resource resource required to support the project will 3 2 6 to support 3 1 3 result in timescales not successful delivery being met of project.
Dialogue commenced with Historic Scotland and they are Lack of stakeholder currently (Historic Scotland, 2 1 2 supportive of 1 1 1 Community Council etc) approach / project. and partner support Keep stakeholders informed as part of communications strategy
Report completed by Ross McLaughlin 7 th July 2014
Rothesay Windows Project
Project Update Report
Rothesay Windows Project – APPENDIX A Communication Plan and Education Strategy
COMMUNICATION ACTION TIMESCALE
ABC Press Statement on Window Replacement –‘ Living in a Development Management to Prepare Story and Communications Team to publish in August 2014 Conservation Area and Listed Building’ . Released to all papers Press and on Website Page 218 but extra liaison with the Buteman to publish
ABC Website – Windows Information Page Development Management to draw together a web page on timber window August 2014 to tie in information and other useful links with above
Separate Press Statement on- Investment in Rothesay Heritage Specific information on how much public money has been invested into Rothesay as August 2014 to tie in part of CARS and THI with above
Leaflet drop into tenements where windows alterations have Notices explain when consent is required. Pointing to Council website September 2014 been an issue or the fenestrations remain intact (positive intervention)
Leaflet / email / letter drop to local joiners about their Notices explain when consent is required. Pointing to Council website September 2014 obligations in terms of works to Listed Buildings and in Conservation Areas
Investigation of holding John McRitchie (or other identified Development Management and Economic Development to identify suitable resource October 2014 person) workshop into traditional craftsmanship and benefits of repairing timber windows
Page 219 Agenda Item 12
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL
Development and Infrastructure 20 th August 2014
Proposed Local Development Plan Adoption: Re-scheduling of time frame
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This purpose of this report is to advise PPSL of the revised time frame for adoption of the proposed Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) and to identify any associated risks related to this delay.
1.2 The proposed LDP was submitted for Examination by the Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) in April 2015 with an estimated timetable for return of a Report by the DPEA of 6 months. The DPEA has since set a timetable for undertaking the Examination of nine months. When this is combined with the statutory processes and time frames required after receipt of the DPEA Report, the timetable for adoption of the LDP is revised to April / May 2015. This rescheduling is beyond our control.
1.3 After August 2014, the current adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan will be more than five years old, but remains in force. Accordingly there will be a time window before adoption of the LDP, during which, there is a small risk the Council could not safely determine certain planning applications when it might otherwise wish to do so.
1.4 This risk is small and should be adequately manageable.
Page 220
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL
Development and Infrastructure 20 th August 2014
Proposed Local Development Plan Adoption: Re-scheduling of time frame
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This report advises PPSL of the revised time frame for adoption of the proposed Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) and identifies the associated risks related to this delay.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Members note that following the DPEA setting of its target return time, there is now an amended timescale for adoption of the Argyll and Bute LDP of April / May 2015.
3.2 Members note that the already adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan will be more than five years old after August 2014, and that there is a small risk that the Council could not safely determine an application until the LDP Examination has been completed.
4.0 DETAIL
4.1 Members will be aware that the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) is currently undergoing Examination by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The LDP was submitted to the DPEA on 25 th April 2014. It had initially to undergo a statement of conformity with the Participation Statement (previously produced by the Council stating what means it would employ to consult on the proposed LDP) before the Examination could commence.
4.2 At that time, reflecting the indications in the Scottish Government Circular on Development Planning, it was estimated that the DPEA would take 6 months to complete their Examination, and that it would then take the Council the statutory three months to prepare for adoption of the LDP after receipt of the DPEA report. Consequently the estimated time for adoption of the LDP was December 2015.
4.3 The DPEA informed the Council in May that the LDP was in conformity with the Participation Statement. The DPEA has appointed four reporters to deal with the LDP Examination and set a target date for completion of the Examination and production of Page 221
its Report by 24 th January 2015. This may include recommendations to modify the proposed LDP, which will be largely binding on the Council. The Council then has a period of three months in which to modify the plan as recommended by the DPEA report, publish it, and submit it to the Scottish Ministers. The Council can adopt the LDP 28 days after it has submitted to Scottish Ministers unless directed otherwise by Scottish Ministers. Accordingly the Council can plan to adopt the LDP in April / May 2015.
4.4 Currently the Argyll and Bute Local Plan is the adopted Local Plan and continues to form the Development Plan along with the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan, until both are superseded by the single LDP. However from the end of August this year the Argyll and Bute Local Plan will be more than five years old. This is contrary to Section 16 (6) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as modified by The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
4.5 Given the timetable for adoption of the replacement LDP outlined above, this means that the Council will have an out of date Development Plan for an approximate period of 8/9 months.
4.6 The consequences of this are limited but three-fold:
• Planning Performance Framework The annual Planning Performance Framework has a key national headline indicator requiring local development plans to be less than five years old. This is reported annually on the 31 st March, and there is an obvious risk that we will not be able to report positively on this in 2015 unless the DPEA report to us in advance of their target. Internally Council scorecard reporting will reflect this position earlier, in FQ2 2014.
• Determining Planning Applications As members will be aware planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Adopted Development Plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. Despite being more than 5 years old the existing Adopted Plan still sets a largely relevant planning framework for the determination of planning applications and experience to date is that it continues to be fit for purpose. In instances where it is may be out of date, the emerging LDP is taken as a material consideration even though it is not yet adopted. Where there are no outstanding objections to the LDP being considered through the LDP Examination Process it is safe for the LDP to be given considerable weight as a material consideration in determining planning applications. However where there are outstanding objections to the LDP being considered by the Examination, and these are relevant to a planning application, little if any weight could be given to the LDP as a material consideration in determining that planning application. An example would be a planning application for a housing development on a housing site identified by the proposed Page 222
LDP, but objected to through the Examination process. Despite supporting the principle of such a development through the proposed LDP, the Council would find it difficult to determine such an application whilst there are outstanding objections being considered through the LDP Examination. An applicant could choose to appeal such a failure to determine an application, or challenge a determination which was made.
Whilst this risk exists, the probability of it occurring is limited by the small number sites which would trigger such a position and the fact that it is unlikely planning applications will come forward during the time window of risk. In addition, once the DPEA has given the Council its Examination Report, anticipated in January 2015, the Council can then safely give the LDP considerable weight as a material consideration in determining applications. As such this means the window of risk is reduced to 5 months (September 2014 to January 2015), which is a very small time period in the life of local plan.
The risk can be further mitigated by proactive engagement with any applicants that look likely to submit applications related to objections in the LDP Examination, and seeking a pragmatic approach to scheduling any such planning application.
• Scottish Ministers Request A Report Scottish Ministers have a power under the Act (section 16(7)) to direct a planning authority to prepare and submit a report as to why it has failed to replace its LDP within five years. Given the timetabling of the LDP and its late stage in the process it is considered highly unlikely this would occur.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 The timetable for adopting the proposed LDP has been revised to April / May 2015.
5.2 Although there is a small risk that because of the age of the adopted Local Plan, certain planning applications cannot be safely determined by the Council, this will be for a very limited time period, and is unlikely, especially if it is adequately managed through proactive engagement with any potential applicant.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy The Proposed LDP will replace the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan and the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan once it is adopted as anticipated in spring 2015.
6.2 Financial There is a small financial risk that expenses would be awarded against the Council if any Page 223
planning application determination / failure to determine was challenged successfully.
6.3 Legal None.
6.4 HR None.
6.5 Equalities Equality Impact Assessment screening and Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken on the Proposed Local Development Plan. A draft Habitats Regulations Appraisal was prepared .
6.6 Risk That the Council could not determine favourable an application it wished to support until the LDP Examination has been completed.
6.7 Customer Service None.
7.0 APPENDICES None.
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Services Pippa Milne
Policy Lead: Cllr David Kinniburgh
31 st July 2014
For further information contact: Matt Mulderrig Development Policy Manager [email protected] 01436 658925
Page 224
This page is intentionally left blank Page 225 Agenda Item 13
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL
Development and Infrastructure 20 th August 2014
Promotion Of The Proposed Local Development Plan Draft Action Programme
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Th e aim of this report is to highlight to PPSL the purpose of producing the Argyll and Bute Council Draft Action Programme and to advocate its early promotion as a useful tool in implementing the aims and objectives of the Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP).
1.2 All Development Plans are required to contain an Action Programme that should be updated every two years. The Action Programme must: set out a list of actions required to deliver the plan’s policies and proposals, name who is to carry out the action, and give a timescale for carrying it out. It cannot be finalised and adopted until three months after the adoption of the LDP.
1,3 Accordingly the Argyll and Bute Council Draft Action Programme was prepared in February 2014 and submitted to the DPEA for information whilst it undertakes the LDP Examination.
1.5 The proposed LDP has been written to closely align with the economic priorities as identified in the Council’s latest Single Outcome Agreement and Economic Development Action Plan. As such the Action Programme will play a key role in assisting delivery of the aims of these plans. Specifically it will help to ensure development and investment, both private and public, is guided to appropriate sites, development priorities, and strategic infrastructure.
1.6 In essence the Action Programme is a simple tool which synthesises the contents of the LDP in a manner which helps provide a clear and easily identifiable list of tasks and responsibilities. This, along with the requirement to update every two years, will provide a useful post adoption tool for continued focus and regular monitoring of success or progress in delivering the aims of the LDP and overarching documents. It will help to facilitate a more project management based approach to delivering the LDP
1.7 It is proposed to begin a series of meetings to highlight the Action Programme and its contents. As further regular discussions evolve it is envisaged more detail can be incorporated into the Action Plan in an iterative fashion. Page 226
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL
Development and Infrastructure 20 th August 2014
Promotion Of The Proposed Local Development Plan Draft Action Programme
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The aim of this report is to highlight to PPSL the purpose of producing the Argyll and Bute Council Draft Action Programme and to advocate its early promotion as a useful tool in implementing the aims and objectives of the Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP).
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Members note the statutory requirement to produce an Action Programme accompanying the Local Development Plan (LDP), which explains; the actions required to deliver the LDP, who is to carry them out and when.
3.2 Members note the Draft Action Programme cannot be adopted until three months after the adoption of the LDP, and it must be updated and reviewed at least every two years.
3.3 Members confirm the potential for the Draft Action Programme to assist delivery and project management of the LDP and other overarching aims of the Council, and the merits of beginning to engage with delivery partners and the development industry on its content.
4.0 DETAIL
Statutory Context Of The Action Programme 4.1 Section 21 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 requires that all Development Plans should contain an Action Programme that must be updated every two years. The Action Programme must: set out a list of actions required to deliver the plan’s policies and proposals, name who is to carry out the action, and give a timescale for carrying it out.
4.2 The Regulations do not attempt to specify the particular types of action that should be included. However it is expected that they will include delivery of key infrastructure, supplementary guidance, and progress with particular development proposals. Scottish Ministers expect Action Programmes to be a key tool in instigating Page 227
action and co-ordinating the activity of a range of agencies and organisations.
4.3 The Action Programme cannot be adopted until three months after the adoption of the LDP, however it is good practice to consider its scope and style at an early stage in plan preparation to ensure ‘deliverability’ guides the content of the plan itself. Scottish Planning Policy states that Action Programmes should be actively used to drive delivery of planned development; to align stakeholders, phasing, financing and infrastructure investment over the long term.
4.4 Accordingly the Argyll and Bute Council Draft Action Programme was prepared in February 2014 and submitted to the DPEA for information whilst it undertakes the LDP Examination as reported to Council on 20 th March 2014. Although the document has already been consulted on and has incorporated feedback from those consultations, it will remain in draft until after the adoption of the LDP. It may at that time need to be amended to reflect the LDP if the DPEA has required modifications to the LDP.
Role And Content Of The Action Programme 4.5 Implementation of the majority of proposals identified by the LDP relies on the pro-active action of the private development industry. The Action Programme recognises that given the current challenging economic conditions, it is extremely important that Local Authorities are doing all they can as enablers of development and removing impediments. Engagement with the development industry is therefore a key element of the Action Programme and regular feedback is to be sought from agents and developers through meetings, customer forums and feedback forms.
4.6 The proposed LDP has been written to closely align with the economic priorities as identified in the Council’s latest Single Outcome Agreement and Economic Development Action Plan. As such the Action Programme will play a key role in assisting delivery of the aims of these plans and strategies. Specifically, it will help to ensure development and investment, both private and public, is guided to appropriate sites, development priorities, and strategic infrastructure.
4.7 There are areas where the Council owns property or sites, and or where regeneration works are planned. In these areas more direct action is or can be taken by the Council to implement the LDP. In addition the Council levers in external funding such as ERDF or Coastal Communities money. The Action Programme clearly highlights where these actions are being undertaken, who is responsible for them and when they will be delivered.
4.8 Other key activities that influence the implementation of the objectives of the LDP include: the actual application of its policies to determining planning applications, securing suitable planning Page 228
gain, and delivering detailed guidance such as: Conservation Area Appraisals and management plans; preparation of a Built Environment Strategy, The Argyll and Bute Coastal Development Strategy, Supplementary Guidance such as Green Networks, and adoption of the Core Path Plan. All these activities along with many more are clearly highlighted within the Action Programme along with who is responsible for delivering them and when.
4.9 The Action Programme has identified in table form each of the LDP Policies; the Action Required to implement that policy, who is the lead agent or person responsible for that, and what the timescale is in terms of short 1-5yrs, medium 5-10yrs, 10+ yrs, or ongoing.
4.10 At a more detailed level each proposal of the LDP has been identified with a brief assessment, and where possible or applicable any action required. Once the LDP has been through Examination, this can be further refined.
Using The Action Programme As An Implementation Tool 4.11 In essence the Action Programme is a simple tool which synthesises the contents of the LDP in a manner which helps provide a clear and easily identifiable list of tasks and responsibilities.
4.12 This, along with the requirement to update every two years, will providing a useful post adoption tool for continued focus and regular monitoring of success or progress in delivering the aims of not only the LDP but the overarching documents with which it aligns. It will help to facilitate a more project managed approach to delivering the LDP both within the Council and externally with partner agencies and the private development industry. Crucially it will assist in helping to identify failures to deliver at an early stage so that remedial measures can be employed. It will also create a sense of accountability and responsibility, both vitally important in ensuring delivery.
4.14 In order to maximise the success of the Action Programme, and ultimately the LDP, it is necessary to promote and explain the document and secure understanding and agreement of its content and purpose from the wider partner agencies and particularly the development industry. The more regularly this is done the more effective the document is likely to be as a programme management tool. Although the document is still in draft there is much to be gained by commencing this promotion and engagement in advance of its finalisation which cannot occur until after the adoption of the LDP. To this end, it is proposed to begin a series of meetings to highlight the Action Programme and its contents, particularly the areas of Action Responsibilities. Initial meetings have been arranged with HIE and the Scottish Land Federation although this would just be a starting point. As further Page 229
regular discussion evolves it is envisaged that further detail can be incorporated into the Action Plan over time.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 In accordance with statutory requirements a Draft Action Programme has been produced to accompany the LDP and it has been sent to the DPEA for information at the same time as the LDP was sent for Examination.
5.2 The Draft Action Programme sets out a list of actions required to deliver the LDP’s policies and proposals, names who is to carry out the action, and gives a timescale for carrying it out. If necessary it can be amended after receipt of the DPEA report into the LDP, and it must be adopted three months after adoption of the LDP. Thereafter it must be reviewed and updated at least every two years.
5.3 Scottish Planning Policy states that Action Programmes should be actively used to drive delivery of planned development; to align stakeholders, phasing, financing and infrastructure investment over the long term. In essence the Action Programme is a simple tool which synthesises the contents of the LDP in a manner which helps provide a clear and easily identifiable list of tasks and responsibilities. In advance of its adoption, it is proposed to begin promoting the Action Programme as a tool for implementation of the LDP and that this is carried out by engaging with the development industry and other key agencies.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy There is a requirement to adopt the Action Programme three months after adoption of the LDP and thereafter update it every two years.
6.2 Financial None.
6.3 Legal None.
6.4 HR None.
6.5 Equalities None.
6.6 Risk None
6.7 Customer Service None.
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Argyll and Bute Council Draft Action Programme Page 230
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cd030_- _argyll_and_bute_council_draft_action_programme_as_at_2014.pdf
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Services Pippa Milne
Policy Lead: Cllr David Kinniburgh
31 st July 2014 For further information contact: Matt Mulderrig Development Policy Manager [email protected] 01436 658925
Page 231 Agenda Item 14
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning Protective Services and Licensing
Development and Infrastructure Services 20 th August 2014
National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014
1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of the issuing of the new National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014, which require to be taken into consideration in planning matters.
1.2 National Planning Framework (NPF) sets the context for development planning in Scotland and provides a statutory framework for the spatial development of Scotland as a whole.
1.3 The revised Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a material consideration that the council should have regard to for i) the preparation of development plans; ii) the design of development; and iii) the determination of planning applications and appeals.
1.4 Argyll and Bute Council has been successful in getting many of the points it raised during the consultation period in 2013 (As reported at Council 29 th August 2013) taken into account in the final issued documents. 1.5 The NPF contains four key themes: A successful, sustainable place; A low carbon place; A natural resilient place; and A connected place. It identifies 14 national developments to deliver the strategy, which in Argyll and Bute include the proposed upgrade of the Ben Cruchan pumped storage scheme; an upgrade to the High Voltage Transmission network (indicative - Carradale and Dalmally); and a national digital fibre network linking Scotland’s most peripheral communities. In addition a number of locations within Argyll and Bute are noted within the overall framework. 1.6 Key changes in the SPP are :- a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development; an improved emphasis from the draft in relation to rural issues; a number of new requirements which may have resource implications, such as to prepare town centre strategies, to undertake town centre health checks and a business land audit, heat mapping to identify the potential for co-locating developments with a high heat demand with sources of heat supply; concept of “huts”, “wild land” and green infrastructure” introduced; the Land Use Strategy and National Marine Plan are now integral to the rural development section; an increased range of factors to be taken into consideration in respect of onshore wind farms, including wild land and community separation. 1.7 It is recommended that Members note the report.
Page 232
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning Protective Services and Licensing
Development and Infrastructure Services 20 th August 2014
National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of the issuing of the new National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014, which require to be taken into consideration in planning matters.
2.2 Argyll and Bute Council commented on both these documents during the consultation period in 2013 (As reported at Council 29 th August 2013). The appendices to this report provide detail relating to the contents of these two documents, as they affect Argyll and Bute in particular.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 That Members note the contents of this report and appendices, in particular those aspects of relevance to Argyll and Bute, which have been included in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) as a result of the Council’s response and lobbying by the Development Policy Unit via the Northern Development Plans Forum.
4.0 DETAIL
4.1 The National Planning Framework (NPF) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) have been prepared in parallel with each other, as in effect the NPF is the spatial expression of Scottish Government planning policy as proposed in SPP. The NPF is prepared on a strict 5 year timetable and requires to be laid before Parliament for approval. On the other hand the SPP does not have a fixed period for review and does not require to be laid before Parliament for formal approval.
4.2 The National Planning Framework (NPF) sets the context for development planning in Scotland and provides a framework for the spatial development of Scotland as a whole. It sets out the Government’s development priorities over the next 20-30 years and identifies national developments which support the development strategy. As well as a framework for the spatial development of Scotland as a whole, it includes 14 national developments, identified to
Page 233
deliver the strategy.
4.3 The purpose of the SPP is to set out national planning policies which reflect Scottish Ministers’ priorities for operation of the planning system and for the development and use of land. The SPP promotes consistency in the application of policy across Scotland whilst allowing sufficient flexibility to reflect local circumstances. The council will have to have regard to it in:
• the preparation of development plans; • the design of development; and • the determination of planning applications and appeals.
4.4 There have been a number of changes introduced in the new SPP as a result of the consultation. The most significant is the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. There is an improved emphasis in the SPP in relation to rural issues. There are also a number of new requirements, such as to prepare Town Centre Strategies, which will have resource implications. The detailed points are set out in Appendix 2 of this report.
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Framework 3 provides the overarching framework for landuse planning in Scotland and sets the direction of travel for both policy and strategic developments in Scotland for an anticipated 10 to 20 year timescale.
5.2 The responses to the consultation exercise on both documents last year have helped to shape them, and in the context of Argyll and Bute have been particularly successful in getting greater recognition and support at a national level for developments, and projects for infrastructure improvements in Argyll and Bute which are important at a council wide and national level.
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy The Council is required to take account of the National Planning Framework 3 as a statutory framework and the Scottish Planning Policy as a material consideration in preparation of its Development Plan, determination of planning applications and when considering the design of developments.
6.2 Financial None as a result of this report. However the SPP has introduced some new requirements for the planning authority, which will have resource implications.
6.3 Legal None as a result of this report
6.4 HR None as a result of this report
Page 234
6.5 Equalities None as a result of this report
6.6 Risk None as a result of this report
6.7 Customer Service None as a result of this report
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Pippa Milne 31/07/2014
For further information contact: Mark Lodge (NPF3), Sybil Johnson (SPP 2014) 01436 658925
Policy Lead: Cllr David Kinniburgh
APPENDICES Appendix 1 National Planning Framework 3 - Further Detail Appendix 2 Scottish Planning Policy - Further Detail
Page 235
Appendix 1 National Planning Framework 3
The National Planning Framework 3 (NPF) sets out the Government’s development priorities over the next 20-30 years and identifies national developments which support the development strategy. NPF3 is the spatial expression of the Governments Economic Strategy, it focuses on supporting sustainable economic growth and the transition to a low carbon economy, and sets out the opportunities for sustainable growth across Scotland. There are four key themes: A successful, sustainable place; A low carbon place; A natural resilient place; and A connected place. As well as the 4 key themes, it includes 14 national developments, identified to deliver the strategy.
The 4 key themes are:
1) A successful, sustainable place
This sees the cities as a focus for investment, and identifies seven cities and their city regions as the main driver of Scotland’s economy. The NPF seeks to promote vibrant rural areas, in the context of Argyll and Bute this is reflected in coastal and island communities, where the National Marine Plan will be developed to encourage the sustainable development and use of the marine environment to deliver economic and social benefits for island and coastal communities. In addition the NPF sees opportunities to develop the existing strengths in tourism and primary industries like food and drink, with continuing strengths in forestry and whisky noted for Argyll.
Campbeltown is considered like a number of other coastal towns in south west Scotland to be vulnerable to economic down turn. However significant opportunities for business development and growth are highlighted, such as wind turbine tower manufacturing, the upgrade of Campbeltown Harbour and emerging plans for offshore renewables, mean the town is well placed to act as a green energy hub, truncking of the A83, the pilot summer ferry service between Ardrossan and Campbeltown and the national plans to improve digital and electricity grid connections all helping to support business development.
The Councils plans for Oban through the Lorn Arc Initiative is recognised in NPF 3 with the strategic location and opportunities to reposition the towns economy noted. The opportunities for growth in renewable energy, tourism and marine science are highlighted, reference also made to the nearby Scottish Association for Marine Science, and plans to establish a European Marine Science Park. The role which Oban plays as a transport interchange is also recognised with a crucial rail service and connections by bus and ferry to the rest of Argyll and the Inner Hebrides. Oban airport is also seen as playing a role in supporting business and providing links to services for wider rural communities.
2) A low carbon place
The NPF reconfirms the Scottish Governments ambition to achieve at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. A target is to reduce total final energy demand by 12% by 2020, with at least 30% of demand met from renewables by the same year. To do this and maintain security of supply will require generating the equivalent of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables and increasing the proportion of heat and transport fuels sourced from renewables . The
Page 236
Scottish Governments Heat Generation Policy Statement will set out how biomass and district heating can help meet these targets.
In time the NPF expects the pace of onshore wind developments to be overtaken by a growing focus on marine energy from wind, wave and tidal energy. On shore wind will continue to make a significant contribution, however windfarm developments should not be located in the National Park or National Scenic Areas. Scottish Planning Policy provided further guidance on spatial frameworks to guide new developments to the right areas taking into account important features including wild land. Local and community ownership of renewable energy schemes is encouraged and the Scottish Government is aiming to achieve at least 500MW of renewable energy in community and local ownership by 2020.
The spatial framework for renewable energy developments identifies Machrihanish/Campbeltown as a green energy hub. The proposals to increase the capacity of the pumped storage system at Cruachan are highlighted, with Cruachan being identified as one of the 14 National developments.
3) A natural resilient place
The importance of land, water, and landscape resources is recognised, together with the role it plays in contributing to quality of life, national identity and visitor economy. Scotland’s rural areas are recognised as providing many natural resources and playing an important part in supporting quality of life. The NPF wants to see these links strengthened, through a renewed interest in hutting and increased community ownership of rural assets.
Rural areas are also recognised as important in building long term resilience to climate change with peatland restoration, woodland creation, and flood risk management plans promoted to address this.
Rural Scotland provides significant opportunities for tourism, outdoor sports, and recreation. The National Park is an exemplar of sustainable development and growth, based on environmental assets and natural resources. The opportunity to further develop sailing on the west coast and Hebridean Islands is recognised, along with, the important contribution the Crinan Canal can make to this. A national network of long distance routes for walking and cycling is also identified, and includes a reference to the Kintyre Way.
4) A connected place
The Scottish Governments Infrastructure Investment Plan sets out the programme for investment in all modes of transport and other infrastructure. In addition to road infrastructure the importance of digital connectivity is highlighted. High quality mobile and fixed broadband connections to support communities and businesses in rural areas are essential and the Infrastructure Investment Plan seeks to accelerate the role out to rural areas over the next five years.
The NPF recognises that in rural areas, coastal and island communities reliance on the car will remain important. Infrastructure to facilitate greater use of low carbon fuels will be promoted. The initiatives on Islay are specifically mentioned, with electric vehicle charging points at ferry terminals. Improvements to the A82, trunking of the A83 from Kennacraig to Campbeltown and longer term improvements to the A85 and A828 helping to support expected development in these areas.
Page 237
National Developments
Amongst the 14 national developments as a result of representations from Argyll and Bute and Scottish Power, the proposed upgrade of the Ben Cruchan pumped storage scheme is included. The other national developments also of relevance to Argyll is an upgrade to the High Voltage Transmission network which although on a nation wide basis is shown diagrammatically to include an upgrade of the network between Carradale and Dalmally. A national digital fiber network linking Scotland’s most peripheral communities is also identified, in Argyll and Bute this is shown indicatively as extending from Mid Argyll to Jura, Islay, Kintyre, Bute and Cowal to the Rosneath Penisula and Garelochhead. This network also links Tiree, Mull, Lismore, Oban, North and East Lorn to north Loch Lomondside and then on to the central belt.
Page 238
Appendix 2 Scottish Planning Policy - Further detail
1 The purpose of the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is to set out national planning policies which reflect Scottish Ministers’ priorities for operation of the planning system and for the development1 and use of land. The SPP promotes consistency in the application of policy across Scotland whilst allowing sufficient flexibility to reflect local circumstances. It directly relates to: • the preparation of development plans; • the design of development, from initial concept through to delivery; and • the determination of planning applications and appeals.
2 The SPP provides a non-statutory overview of the aims and principles of the Scottish planning system and promotes sustainable economic growth, high quality places, community engagement and sustainable development. It also sets out policy on a wide range of matters such as housing, retailing, natural and historic environment, landscape, open space, flooding and renewable energy.
3 The SPP sits alongside the following Scottish Government planning policy documents; the National Planning Framework (NPF), which provides a statutory framework for Scotland’s long-term spatial development. The NPF sets out the Scottish Government’s spatial development priorities for the next 20 to 30 years. The SPP sets out policy that will help to deliver the objectives of the NPF; Creating Places, the policy statement on architecture and place, which contains policies and guidance on the importance of architecture and design; Designing Streets, which is a policy statement putting street design at the centre of placemaking. It contains policies and guidance on the design of new or existing streets and their construction, adoption and maintenance; and Circulars, which contain policy on the implementation of legislation or procedures.
4 Content of the SPP 4.1 The Scottish Government believe that the planning system has a vital role to play in delivering high-quality places for Scotland by creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth. To do this planning should take a positive approach to enabling high-quality development and making efficient use of land to deliver long-term benefits for the public while protecting and enhancing natural and cultural resources.
4.2 The SPP aligns with 16 Government outcomes. The SPP considers that there are four outcomes which planning policy can support to positively shape the future of Scotland. Outcome 1: A successful, sustainable place – supporting sustainable economic growth and regeneration, and the creation of well-designed, sustainable places. Outcome 2: A low carbon place – reducing our carbon emissions and adapting to climate change. Outcome 3: A natural, resilient place – helping to protect and enhance our natural and cultural assets, and facilitating their sustainable use. Outcome 4: A more connected place – supporting better transport and digital connectivity
4.3 The SPP contains Principal Policies regarding sustainability and placemaking. It also contains a number of Subject Policies relating to Successful, Sustainable Place; Low Carbon Place ; Natural, Resilient Place ;and Connected Place. The
Page 239
SPP contains annexes giving more technical advice relating to Town Centre Health Checks and Strategies and also to Parking Policies and Standards
5 Key Points • Increased emphasis on engagement with communities during the preparation of development plans. But also noting the responsibilities of individuals and community groups to ensure that they focus on planning issues and use available opportunities for engaging constructively with developers and planning authorities. • Increased emphasis on rural issues from the draft version– ABC sought a change re the introduction of specific policy on Remote Rural or Island areas. The SPP now notes this issue. • Stronger focus on outcomes which has been updated to reflect the current 16 Scottish Government outcomes • Introduction of Principal Policies relating to Sustainable development, delivery and place making. This includes a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. The aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost. ABC sought changes from the draft i) further clarity on how decisions are expected to be taken in terms of the delivery of economic benefit when environmental and/or social impacts have also been identified. This section has been reworded to make clear the primacy of an up to date Development Plan in decision making. ii) recognition that delivery is increasingly dependent on many factors including contributions from all of the key agencies and the private sector. The Principal Policy relating to “Delivery” contains guidance for the Development Plan and Development Management but nothing specific in this section re the role of developers or the key agencies. • Town Centre Health Checks and strategies are now required for town centres - Argyll and Bute Council currently undertakes town centre health checks on an annual basis for its six main towns. ABC Sought a change - the list of indicators identified in the draft could prove a considerable resource burden on rural authorities such as Argyll and Bute. This is no longer a prescriptive list but an optional list from which authorities can select appropriate indicators. ABC noted that preparing town centre strategies may prove resource intensive for small authorities. • Explicit Town Centre First policy - ABC noted that some footfall generating activities in rural areas in particular are not suited to town centre locations such as major tourism development relating to outdoor leisure and as such should be exempt from such a test. An amendment has been added that gives additional flexibility to deal with such issues. • A specific rural threshold for Retail Impact Assessments was requested but the policy remains as is. It is noted that it contains flexibility in respect of this related to the impact of smaller development. • Rural Development and Spatial Strategies – There has been some improvement in the detail relating to rural areas as requested by ABC. However, there has been no alteration of the SPP in respect of the specific request relating to occupancy restrictions • The Rural Development Section has taken on board many of the comments raised by Argyll and Bute and other rural authorities. It now places emphasis on the spatial strategy, sustainable economic growth and generally better reflects rural issues than the draft. The concept of “huts” introduced in the draft remains but a definition, as requested by ABC, has been added to the glossary. The Land Use Strategy and National Marine Plan are now linked to the rural development section.
Page 240
• Enabling Delivery of New Homes - A “generous” housing land supply has to be set in the development plan. The delivery of this is varied for authorities such as Argyll and Bute that are outwith the city regions. Windfall can contribute to the supply which is important in a rural area. A housing land audit is required but can be adapted to local circumstances in rural areas. The affordable requirement remains at generally no more than 25%. • Supporting Business and Employment – there is a new requirement for business and industry audits with set criteria to be monitored. The SPP now usefully includes A Guide to Development Viability There is also a link to the new Tourism Development Framework for Scotland which is a key industry for our area. The SPP continues to support the growth sectors as also identified in the council’s Economic Development Action Plan and the Local Development Plan (excepting forestry). • Maximizing the benefit of Green Infrastructure – The concept of green infrastructure is introduced in this SPP. The Proposed Local Development Plan has introduced Green Networks which form part of the green infrastructure. • Delivering Heat and electricity - The planning system has to support the national targets to move towards a low carbon economy A new requirement has been introduced for Local development plans to use heat mapping to identify the potential for co-locating developments with a high heat demand with sources of heat supply. The data to assist with this has already been obtained from the Scottish Government. Local Development Plans have also to support the development of new heat networks • Onshore Wind - There is an increased range of factors to be taken into consideration in respect of onshore wind farms, including wild land (which is now required to be identified as per the 2014 SNH maps). The concept of community separation distance was raised in the draft and further clarity on this was sought by ABC. A distance of up to 2km to be determined by the local authority has been introduced. The Spatial Framework includes reference to National Scenic Areas but not more local landscape designations. ABC noted that further onshore wind development was constrained through a lack of sufficient grid connection. The SPP notes that Grid capacity should not be used as a reason to constrain an area. Community Benefit - the reference to community benefit as a material consideration was raised as a concern by ABC and the Heads of Planning and this has been removed from the SPP. Guidance is provided on this matter. • Supporting Digital Connectivity - The planning system is to encourage the provision of broadband infrastructure in new developments • Managing Flood Risk and Drainage with Flood Risk Assessments – Retains and revises the Flood Risk Assessment framework, introducing surface water flooding. • Planning for zero waste – has been incorporated into the SPP. • General - The improvements made from the draft SPP in terms of recognizing the different needs of rural and island communities in terms of planning are welcomed.
Page 241 Agenda Item 15
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL Committee
Development and Infrastructure 20 August 2014
Planning and Regulatory Services – Service Quarterly Performance Report, FQ1 2014 – 2015 (April to June)
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise Members of Planning and Regulatory Services team performance for the period FQ1 2014-15 (April to June) as required by the Council’s Planning and Performance Management Framework (PPMF). The service’s scorecard is available on Pyramid for Members’ further detailed scrutiny.
1.2 Planning and Regulatory Services (PRS) have eighteen success measures of which the majority (14) are currently green. As such this report will concentrate on giving Members an explanation of the exceptions and any corrective actions.
Page 242
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL Committee
Development and Infrastructure 20 August 2014
Planning and Regulatory Services – Service Quarterly Performance Report, FQ1 2014 – 2015 (April to June)
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Members note the good performance overall of the PRS Quarterly Performance Scorecard and the important fact that the majority of success measures have been achieved.
2.2 Members note the exception reporting on targets not met with particular regard to the proposed corrective actions.
3.0 DETAIL
3.1 Members will be aware of the Council’s quarterly performance reports on Pyramid and the current scrutiny arrangements through the Performance Review and Scrutiny Committee. To enhance the Council scrutiny arrangements it has been agreed that the service quarterly performance reports will now be reported to the relevant strategic committee.
3.2 As Members can see in Appendix 1 the scorecard for PRS is very positive with 14 out of 18 success measures in the green, ie targets have been met. This report will therefore concentrate on exception reporting broken down into the constituent service areas of PRS.
3.3 Development Management Three out of four success measures are green. Service targets have been met in terms of planning applications approval rates, planning application processing and pre-application performance. There is currently one red indicator relating to ‘% of valid applications neighbour notified within 5 working days’. Within FQ1 the service validated and neighbour notified 79% of applications within 5 days which is 11% short of our 90% target. The reason the target hasn’t been met is due to staff vacancy / sickness absence within a small team of five officers, coupled with an increase in the number of planning applications being submitted. To deal with this issue we are currently re-structuring this small team (new line manager and recruitment of new business support staff) and undertaking Business Process Re-engineering.
3.4 Building Standards All performance targets have been exceeded and customer satisfaction is running at 100%
Page 243
3.5 Regulatory Services The service is generally on target to meet all of its key performance measures. Only one performance target has not been met relating to the completion of the priorities detailed in the Joint Health Protection Plan that we develop in conjunction with NHS Highland and Highland Council. We are currently working on a draft plan with our partners (which should be complete by October 2014) but there have been delays due to key staff within NHS Highland being on sabbatical.
3.6 Development Policy Development Policy has six service success measures, five of which are green and one is red. The target that has not been met relates to ‘a 5% annual improvement to visitor numbers on the core path network key sites’. This target is red as we do not yet have sufficient data to identify a trend. The team is working to extrapolate historical data which should be available from FQ3 2014 onwards. The core path team will also explore partnership working to further improve and develop the information in coming quarters, particularly aiming to identify a more widespread collection of data with other key agencies such Forestry Commission and SNH.
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 Performance over this quarter is generally good. Where performance targets have not been met corrective actions are currently in place and will be monitored to ensure that performance improvement takes place. Further quarterly reports will be placed before this committee for Members’ scrutiny.
5.0 IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Policy None. This report complies with the Council’s PPMF
5.2 Financial None
5.3 Legal None
5.4 HR None
5.5 Equalities None
5.6 Risk None
5.7 Customer Service None
Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Services Policy Lead Councillor David Kinniburgh 7 August 2014
For further information contact: Angus Gilmour, Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Tel: 01546 604288 [email protected]
Appendix 1 - Planning and Regulatory Services Scorecard FQ1 2014/15 Page 244
Page 245 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 Agenda Item 16 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 248
This page is intentionally left blank Page 249 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 250
This page is intentionally left blank