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) () Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle

Reference No : 09/00689/COU Planning Hierarchy : Local Applicant : Director of Community Services Proposal : Change of use of land to form extension to school playground and car park and formation of access Site Address : Land to rear of Primary School, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Change of use of land to form extension to school playground; • Change of use of land to form school car park; • Formation of a new vehicular access.

(ii) Other specified operations

• Erection of fencing

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons attached.

(C) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads (16.06.2009) - No objection subject to conditions. Archaeologist (11.06.2009) - No objection. Historic Scotland (08.06.2009) - No objection. Environmental Services (09.06.2009) - No objection.

(D) HISTORY:

07/00595/DET - Erection of rear extension to school (as amended by plan received 15.06.07), Gigha Primary School, Ardminish - Application Approved 25.06.07.

08/01353/COU- Change of use of land to form extension to school playground and car park and formation of access, Gigha Primary School, Ardminish - Application withdrawn 02.03.09.

(E) PUBLICITY:

Article 9 Vacant Land, which expired on the 19th June 2009.

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

(i) Representations received from:

Henri Mcaulay, 2 Raon Mor, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, PA41 7AB.

Dr Arthur J A Wightman and Mrs Janet Wightman, Ceol Mara, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, PA41 7AD/19 Greenhill Gardens, Edinburgh, EH10 4BL.

Frederick and Valerie Gillies, Heather Lea, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, PA41 7AA

(ii) Summary of issues raised by objectors (2 No.):

• Neighbours would suffer extensive loss of amenity and privacy, since the development area comes right up to their garden fence.

Comment: issues of amenity and privacy are considered at Appendix A to this report.

• The projected Gigha Primary School roll shows a decline to 9 pupils by 2014, based on figures collated last August. Since then, nothing has changed, with no new children coming to the island. In light of this the existing playground, which has recently been completely resurfaced, is adequate to meet the needs of the pupils and the cost effectiveness of extending it is questioned. The objector also notes that new galvanised railings and gates have been installed within the last few months.

Comment: The cost effectiveness of the proposals is a matter for the Education Authority. The proposals are appropriately founded on the provision of appropriate facilities for the school at its current capacity which currently has no grassed play space for older pupils.

• There is a broader need for a car park in the vicinity, which could easily be used by the two cars which are involved in the daily running of the school. There is an ideal flat field directly north of the shop, part of which could be utilised at low cost to create a small car park. It is a 30-second walk from there to the school gates. School taxis presently drop a number if children off directly on to the narrow pavement at the school gates, which is 100 per cent safe. As for the pedestrian pupils, we agree that there is a case for safer access to the school, which would cut out the need for children to use the blind T-junction approach at the shop. An unobtrusive footpath (a low cost project) could easily be laid through the land earmarked and give completely safe access to the rear of the school.

Comment: No alternative parking options are before the Planning Authority for consideration at this time. The current proposal must be considered on its merits. The operational desirability of providing parking immediately adjacent to the existing school site is accepted.

• We object to an access road being built through land designated ‘countryside around settlement’ (CAS). We refer to STRAT DC 2 of the Structure Plan 2002, and 3.14 and P/DCZ2 of Argyll and Bute Post Inquiry Modifications November 2008 – Written Statement. Examples of development allowed in the structure plan are given in STRAT DC 2 A). STRAT DC 2 C) then states “developments are also subject to consistency with other policies of the structure plan and in the local plan”. The Local Plan Post Inquiry Modifications Nov 2008 (LPPIM) is specific and states unambiguously “only small scale, infill and rounding off and redevelopment proposals will be supported where appropriate”. We believe none of these development types would embrace this access road development. Infill is defined in 10.1 of the local plan and in the LPPIM – statement on Decision of Reporters Findings, Nov. 2008, and the proposal does not seem to constitute rounding off or redevelopment since it concerns untouched, open grazing land. This access road would not constitute permissible development on this CAS.

Comment: The issue of compliance with Policy STRAT DC 2 is considered at Appendix A of this report.

• We note that in the planning report on the withdrawn application (ref 08/01353/COU, para A) of STRAT DC 2 was used to support this application, while para C) received no mention. We are surprised that the policy was cherry picked, and believe that for impartiality with this council application the policy requires to be considered as a whole.

Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report.

• Local Plan policy COM 1 was also used to support the argument. This however requires compliance with STRAT DC 2, and so in turn through clause C) with the local plan, and thereby leads to a non-qualifying form of development as argued above. STRAT DC 2 A) states “in special cases, a locational need or exceptional circumstance may justify a development”. In the earlier report, this was used as an argument for building the access road through CAS, while at the same time STRAT DC 2 C), requiring consistency with the local plan, was again disregarded. This “special case” provision is excluded from the clearly defined conditions of the local plan in which “only small scale, infill and rounding off and redevelopment proposals will be supported where appropriate”.

Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report.

• There are no “special case” provisions applicable in this case. The “special case” argument for development on CAS is to some extent immaterial, since there is alternative access to the proposed car park through land lying entirely within the settlement zone, from the main road between Ferry House and Ferry Cottages. We appreciate this is not land currently offered – we just state that there is potential access within the settlement zone itself. In conclusion the structure plan requires consistency with the local plan with respect to CAS, and the local plan within its terms does not appear to allow for this development.

Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report.

• We ask that our objection is upheld. (We also mention that we do not consider the statements in appendix B – A (C) para.2 of the previous report relevant. STRAT DC 2 does not say built development or building development, it just says development. The policy seems to have been misquoted).

Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report.

• We object strongly to the proposed car park and access road on the grounds of significant loss of amenity in terms of privacy, noise and visual impact. While we are not making a planning objection to the playground itself, we point out that loss of amenity from noise would be compounded by this. All our public rooms and bedrooms face only to the south and/or east, directly on to the proposed development, and our conservatory faces to these two sides also, and to the west. Great privacy and peace are major amenities of our home, and would be significantly lost by the proposed car park and access road.

Comment: Issues of privacy, noise and visual impact are considered at Appendix A to this report.

• We mention (as previously) that we have a long sewage pipe and a septic tank within the proposed site. We question whether these were laid to cater for overlying traffic.

Comment : These are matters of civil law and there is no suggestion or reason to believe that they would present an insurmountable obstacle to development. They have been drawn to the attention of Community Services who have advised that drainage would be protected to allow for constructing the proposed hardstanding.

• We refer to the 1:1250 and 1:500 scale drawings 01 and L (00)002. We agree that the road and boundary wall are straight, and that the verge width between our wall at the south west corner of our home and the roadside is as shown, measuring one metre. However, both drawings suggest that the verge widens to 1.5 metres to encroach a little on the road at the shown access site and at the line of the fence forming the south boundary of the field in front of us. This is not the case – the road edge and boundary wall are both parallel and show a constant verge width varying by only 5-10cm on either side of 1 metre in this section. We wonder if this drawing error is the reason why the position of the access road shown on the two drawings seems incorrect (too far north?) We realise it is difficult to produce exact representation on such small scale drawings, and would ask you to determine this from calculation in order to comply with the new sightline requirements of 42 x 2.4 x1.05 metres. We are sure the Council would not compromise on road safety policy, particularly as the last planning application was withdrawn on the basis of such-non-compliance.

Comment: The allocation of land between verge and carriageway areas at this location areas is outwith the scope of planning control and a matter for the Roads Authority, who are content with the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions. The verge width has been checked on site and the accuracy of the submitted drawings is accepted in relation to the proposed site entrance.

• While not a planning issue, we conclude by reiterating what we have written previously, that we as parents fully endorse good road safety provision for children. We support the proposal of our neighbour, Mr Freddy Gillies and others that this would be greatly improved, and at greatly reduced cost, by continuing the pavement, which runs from the school to the T-junction with the north-south road, round the corner at this junction. The pavement could be continued for some distance down the road to the south if desired. This would provide safety not only for children attending school, but for many visitors to the island. The pavement at the corner could be protected with metal railings.

Comment: the provision of safe access is a material planning concern. Whilst not addressing the absence of footways at other areas close to the school. The proposed development would represent an improvement over existing access arrangements.

iii) Support for the proposal (1 No).

• I received a neighbour notification plan and would like to strongly lodge a non objection to this proposal...... My son is 6 and a pupil at Gigha primary school. We daily run the gauntlet of traffic at the corner where there is no pavement. Those picking up children for school transport have more than one child to collect which is even more dangerous. .... (Reference to) the difficulties caused for parents ...... I have witnessed several near incidents where children have almost been hit by traffic. We have a lot of visitors to the island who are unaware that children may be crossing and who do not necessarily care. Building contractors and business traffic are not clued up in to the routine of the island and do not necessarily bear in mind that children as young as three are taking the bend with no pavement. There is also a blind summit for traffic approaching from the North. I sincerely hope that the parents who unanimously support this proposal are not proven right by a terrible tragedy...... (Those) next to the school ... should expect to have associated facilities. This is in addition to the obvious lack of parking for teachers, parents and visitors to the school.

Comment: Road safety and operational issues are addressed at Appendix A to this report. iv) Comments from the applicant in respect of third party representations.

The Director of Community Services has been supplied with copies of the representations and comments below on the issues raised:

Accuracy of drawings – dimensions have been measured on site. The distance between the road edge and the fence varies between 1.02 m and 1.42 m and is indicated on the 1:500 drawing.

Necessity for the development – the HM Inspector’s report in 2005 stated that “the school had no grass play area for play or physical activity”. Since the report a soft play area has been added for pre-five activities, which leaves the other years without a grass area. The current school roll is not an issue as any design is based upon maximum occupancy. The purpose of the car park is to make Disability Discrimination Act provision for disabled persons, to facilitate drop off/pick up, deliveries and staff parking.

Risk of damage to existing drainage – any existing services will be protected during construction.

Adequacy of sight lines – the drawing has been dimensioned to incorporate the sight lines required by Operational Services.

Privacy – fencing is proposed along the boundary of the play area and existing fencing is to be retained to reduce the visual impact of the development.

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the No Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:

(iii) A design or design/access statement: No

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed No 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 1 – Development within the Settlements STRAT DC 2 – Development within the Countryside Around Settlements

‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009

LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design

LP TRAN 3 – Special Needs Access Provision LP TRAN 4 – New and Existing Public Roads and Private Access Regimes

LP COM 1 – Community Facility Development

(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.

• The design of the proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings; • Access; • Planning history of the site; • Views of statutory and other consultees; • Third party representations expressed on legitimate planning matters.

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No

(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: Yes, as applicant and education authority.

(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): No

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

The proposal seeks to extend the school grounds to provide a dedicated parking facility and improved play facilities with associated works. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant development plan policies listed within the report. Consultees have no objections to this proposal. Two letters of objection have been received together with one letter of expressing “non-objection” referring to concerns about the current access and parking situation.

(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 is consistent with the relevant policies of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009 and there are no material considerations, including those raised by third parties which are sufficient to override the presumption in favour of development supported by the development 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: Charles Tibbles Date: 05.10.2009

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 05.10.2009

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 09/00689/COU

1. That the development to which this permission relates must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.

2. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 20th May 2009 and the approved drawing reference numbers L(00)001, L(00)002 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.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

3 The proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council's Highway Drawings Numbers: TM197, G300 and TM377 (Type C construction); with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 3.0m back from the rear of the surface bay and shall have visibility splays of 2.40m x 42.0 m in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site, these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

4. No development shall be commenced until the surface treatment of the car park area has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall comprise a surface appropriate in appearance to a rural area such as ‘grasscrete’ or a suitable equivalent. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to secure an appearance appropriate to a rural area.

5. The walls either side of the opening to be formed in the dry stone wall to accommodate the site access shall be reinstated and terminated in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the access is first brought into use..

Reason: In order to ensure appropriate reinstatement of the boundary wall following the formation of the access.

NOTE TO APPLICANT

• In order to comply with Section 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.

• 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.

• Field Gate to open inwards and no surface water to discharge onto the public road.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/00689/COU

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

Under the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, the parts of the site that would be occupied by the proposed playground and car parking area are situated within the ‘settlement’ zone at Ardminish, whilst the associated access falls within the 'countryside around settlements' zone.

The proposal will result in an improved educational facility as well as improved parking arrangements which will go some way to addressing existing access difficulties. Policy LP COM 1 sets out a qualified presumption in favour of new or improved community facilities. The proposed development is clearly in accordance with the aim of Policy LP COM 1 which encourages provision of new public services, facilities and infrastructure that help to support and enhance a community and help retain the local population.

Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 1 gives encouragement to ‘small scale’ development within the minor settlements which is compatible with an essentially rural settlement location on appropriate infill and rounding off sites. Whilst the Local Plan does not explicitly define ‘small scale’ in the context of Community Facility development, it should be noted that the proposal is of minimal size in comparison with other defined small scale development. The proposed playground and proposed car parking area are bounded on three sides by existing development and a proposal of this nature could be considered consistent with the policy position that currently pertains to the adjacent and more restrictive ‘countryside around settlements’ development control zone as detailed below. It is acknowledged that it is not practicable for a development plan to exhaustively prescribe policy in relation to every conceivable scenario and the lack of explicit support for such small scale development within the ‘settlement’ zone in this instance is not considered prejudicial, nor sufficient to set aside the clear intention of the Local Plan in relation to community facilities.

Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 2 gives encouragement to development in the ‘countryside around settlements’ zone which accords with the settlement plan for the area and also recognises that a locational need may justify development. The school is otherwise bounded by a road and domestic properties such that the proposed development site is considered to offer the only practicable location for expand the existing school site and providing a parking facility that is not separated from the school by a road. It should be noted that the applicants along with the Roads Engineers have explored alternative arrangements including the development of land on the opposite side of the road and alternative means of access to the car park site now proposed. Taking into account land availability and road safety considerations, it has been concluded that there is no practicable alternative to the scheme now proposed. As such, there is considered to be a clear locational need which supports the provision of the proposed access.

The proposed development is not considered to be at odds with the terms of the development plan. It draws some support from the Local Plan settlement plan for the area and the aims of Policy LP COM 1, and is considered to be consistent with the development plan.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The site area is 0.11Ha. It is proposed to provide a new grassed play area for the primary school, 5 new car parking spaces (including 1 disabled person’s car parking space), a vehicle turning area, a new footpath and a new vehicular access. Other proposed works include: the provision of a new timber post and wire fence along the southern border of the new access road, timber post and wire fencing and metal gate to the south of the access road along the eastern boundary of the public road; existing wall to remain with new gate to grassed playground area and opening to new car park; and, a new 1500mm high timber fence to match that surrounding the pre- five play area. The new vehicular access would be surfaced for the first 6 metres, after which the remainder of the access and the car park area will have an aggregate surface. The parking bays and footpath to the school will be hard surfaced. The existing fences would remain along the south and east boundary of Ceolmara and along the boundary with Heather Lea.

The proposed new grassed play area, car park and turning area would be located immediately south of the primary school and immediately east of the dwellinghouse ‘Ceolmara’. The application site also extends to the west along the front boundary of ‘Ceolmara’. An grassed area is proposed along this boundary, which would separate the curtilage of the dwellinghouse from the proposed new footpath and access road up to the point where it would meet the entrance to the car park at the south east corner of the ‘Ceolmara’ curtilage. This area would provide a separation of approximately 14 metres between the ‘Ceolmara’ boundary and the proposed footpath and access road, narrowing to 5 metres at the closest point before linking into the proposed new school car park and play area, immediately adjacent to the east boundary of ‘Ceolmara’.

At its closest point, the playground extension would be 18.5 metres and 8.5 metres respectively from the closest adjacent dwellinghouses, namely Ceolmara and Heather Lea.

The proposed site represents the only practicable option for an extension to the school’s facilities on contiguous land, and as such there is considered to be an operational and locational justification for the proposal. The proposed provision of a disabled parking space would bring the school into compliance with disability discrimination legislation. The proposed school playground extension would address shortcomings with the existing school as noted by HM Inspectorate of Education. The proposed parking would provide a convenient and safe drop off/ pick up facility, representing an improvement over the existing arrangements.

Whilst the proposed development would extend the area already occupied by the school, it would not give rise to any increase in the capacity of the school. In view of the scale of the proposal, the existing presence of the school, and the proposed relationship to adjacent domestic properties, it is not considered that any impacts in terms of amenity, noise or privacy would be significant or unacceptable compared with the existing situation, nor sufficient to preclude the improvements that are proposed to what is an important facility on the island.

The development would be surrounded and contained on three sides by existing dwellings and the existing school site, and would not involve construction of any buildings. The principal visual element of the proposal would be the timber boundary fence to the playground extension which would simply advance the existing walled boundary by 14 metres. It is considered that any visual impact would be minimal, acceptable and in line with reasonable expectations for a proposal of this nature. Given the traffic movements which are associated with village schools of this size, which are principally limited to school opening and closing times, with little use at other times and no use during evenings, weekends or school holidays, it is not considered that the usage of the access and parking area proposed would give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance or disturbance to nearby residents.

It is therefore concluded that development within the ‘settlement’ zone but accessed through land designated as ‘countryside around settlement’ can reasonably be considered to be a special case in terms of policy STRAT DC 2 as there is a locational/operational requirement to improve the servicing of the school, in circumstances where there is no alternative available which would confine all aspects of the development to land within the ‘settlement’ boundary.

It is also considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the relevant criteria set out under Policy LP ENV 19 of the adopted Local Plan, in particular those relating to development setting, layout, design and meeting reasonable expectations for special needs groups and that the development will not impinge on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining residents to such an extent as to warrant the application being refused.

C. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.

Operational Services has advised that this application is based on Operational Services old standard detail drawings which have been recently updated. The width of the new two lane section of road could be reduced from 6.0 metres down to 5.5metres. They further advise that conditions should be attached as follows regarding the construction of the bellmouth and provision of visibility splays.

The proposed development would enable compliance with disability discrimination legislation and provide for service vehicles and, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the Area Roads Engineer is satisfied with the proposal. The proposal is therefore judged to accord with Policies LP TRAN 3 and LP TRAN 4 of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Plan.