DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number - 2 – Kintyre & the Islands PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 6th August 2008 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS Committee Date - 4th March 2009 ______

Reference Number: 08/01353/COU Applicants Name: Director of Community Services, Argyll & Bute Council Application Type: Change of Use Application Description: Use of land to form extension to school playground, car park and formation of access Location: Gigha Primary School, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

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

______

(B) RECOMMENDATION

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

______

(C) SUMMARY OF DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

(i) Development Plan Context:

The application site lies primarily within the settlement boundary for Ardminish as defined in both the adopted ‘Kintyre Local Plan’ and the emerging ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’. The proposal may be considered appropriate community development within the settlement in the context of both plans.

Part of the application site (the land required for a new access driveway) lies within, and at the edge of, an area of ‘countryside around settlement’ (CAS) as defined within the Structure Plan and the emerging Argyll and Bute Local Plan. Policy STRAT DC 2 states that in special cases, a locational need or exceptional circumstance may justify a development within the ‘countryside around settlement’ zone, provided that the development does not “erode the setting of the settlement or result in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence”. In this case, there is no available alternative means of access other than through the CAS and the development proposed would not erode the setting of the settlement, result in any form of ‘ribbon development’ or settlement coalescence. It is considered that this lack of an alternative means of access would constitute a locational need and an exceptional circumstance justifying this means of access through the CAS.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version

(ii) Representations:

Representations have been received from two households to date: Dr A. and Mrs J. Wightman of Ceol Mara, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha and; Mr and Mrs F. Gillies of Heather Lea, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha. Various letters and e-mail communications have been received.

(iii) Consideration of the Need for Non-Statutory or PAN 41 Hearing:

N/a

(iv) Reasoned Justification for a Departure to the Provisions of the Development Plan.

N/a

(v) Is the Proposal a Schedule 1 or 2 EIA development:

No

(vi) Does the Council have an interest in the site:

Yes – the Council as Education Authority is the applicant.

(vii) Need and Reason for Notification to Scottish Ministers.

None.

(viii) Has a sustainability Checklist Been Submitted:

Not applicable for this scale of development.

Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 18th February 2009

Author: Tim Williams Date: 17.02.09 Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 18.02.09

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in Appendix A, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll- bute.gov.uk

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 08/01353/COU

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

Reason: In order to comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. Before any works commence on site, a full schedule of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The required schedule shall include full details of all proposed surface treatments, boundary treatments (including any new gateways) and both existing and proposed levels in relation to a fixed off-site datum point. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and appearance of the site and in order to define the permission, no specific details having been submitted with the application.

3. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 2 above, details shall be submitted showing a new tree and/or hedge screen planting belt along the eastern boundary of the application site adjacent to the residential property ‘Heather Lea’ and along the southern part of the western boundary of the application site adjacent to the residential property ‘Ceol Mara’. The required planting belt shall be comprised of native species and the type, specimen height (at time of planting) and position of each tree/plant specimen shall be clearly indicated on the submitted landscaping scheme plan and accompanying schedule. The agreed screen planting belt shall be fully implemented during the first available planting season following the commencement of the development and shall be subsequently maintained. Any trees or shrubs removed, or which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, are dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years or planting, shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In order to attenuate the impact of the proposed development upon the privacy and residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties ‘Heather Lea’ and ‘Ceol Mara’ , and in order to integrate the proposed development within the wider landscape.

4. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 2 above, details shall be submitted showing a new shrub and/or hedge screen planting belt along the northern boundary of the proposed new vehicular access road, adjacent to the southern boundary of the residential property ‘Ceol Mara’. The required planting belt shall be comprised of appropriate native species and the type, specimen height (at time of planting) and position of each shrub/plant specimen shall be clearly indicated on the submitted landscaping scheme plan and accompanying schedule. The agreed screen planting belt shall be fully implemented during the first available planting season and shall be subsequently maintained. Any trees or shrubs removed, or which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, are dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years or planting, shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In order to attenuate the impact of the proposed development upon the privacy and residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining residential property ‘Ceol Mara’ and in order to integrate the proposed development within the wider landscape.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com 5. The proposed access shall have visibility splays of 2.0 metres x 90.0 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over 1.1 metres in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over 1.1 metres in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6. Prior to work starting on site, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing Numbers TM197, G300 and TM377 (type C construction), with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the existing carriageway edge or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7. The gradient of the site access shall not exceed 1 in 15 within 4.5 metres of the edge of the existing carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

INFORMATIVES:

The access shall be constructed to ensure that no surface water is discharged to the public highway in the interests of road safety. The Council’s roads engineers may be contacted on 01546 604655 in connection with the requirements of conditions 5 – 7 above.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/01353/COU

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ADVICE

(i) POLICY OVERVIEW AND MATERIAL ADVICE

‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002

STRAT DC 1 – Gives encouragement to ‘small scale’ development which is compatible with an essentially rural settlement location on appropriate ‘infill’, ‘rounding-off’ and ‘re-development’ sites.

STRAT DC 2 – Seeks to resist development which will erode the setting of a settlement or result in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence.

STRAT DC 9 – Seeks to resist development which would have a significant adverse impact upon the historic environment.

‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984

POL RUR1 and 2 – Designate the whole of the Isle of Gigha as a ‘local scenic area’ within which prominent or sporadic development with an adverse environmental impact will be resisted.

‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ – Post Inquiry Modifications November 2008

LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which the Council will assess all applications for planning permission for their impact upon the natural, human and built environment.

LP ENV 17 – Affords protection to sites of archaeological importance.

LP TRAN 4 – Sets out the Council’s policies with regard to new and existing public roads and private access regimes.

LP COM 1 – Sets out a general presumption in favour of new or improved community facilities provided:

(A) In the settlements where the development is of a form, location and scale consistent with policy STRAT DC 1. (B) In the ‘countryside around settlement’ where the development is of a form, location and scale consistent with policy STRAT DC 2. (C) They respect the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. (D) They are readily accessible by public transport where available, cycling and on foot. (E) They are located close to where people live and reduce the need to travel.

Note (i):The applicable elements of the above Policies have not been objected to or have no unresolved material planning issues and are therefore material planning considerations.

Note (ii):The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com (ii) SITE HISTORY

There is no site history in respect of the current application site; it is however noted that the Council has previously provided notification of its intention to develop an extension of the school playground on land within the garden ground of the ‘School House’ (ref. 06/02617/NID) and has also received planning permission for the erection of an extension to the rear elevation of the school building (ref. 07/00595/DET).

(iii) CONSULTATIONS

• Area Roads Manager (27.08.08) – No objections subject to conditions with regard to the geometry, visibility and construction standard of the proposed new access onto the public highway.

• Area Environmental Health Manager (04.12.08) – No objections – advises that, given the scale of use of the proposed car park and access, the development is unlikely to give rise to any significant loss of amenity or nuisance to adjacent residential properties.

• Historic Scotland (15.08.08) – No comments.

• West of Scotland Archaeology Service (22.08.08) – Advises that the proposal does not raise any substantive archaeological issues.

(iv) PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS

The proposal has been advertised in the Campbeltown Courier for the purposes of notifying vacant land, expired 29 th August 2008. Representations have been received from two households to date: Dr A. And Mrs J. Wightman, Ceol Mara, Isle of Gigha and; Mr & Mrs F. Gillies, Heather Lea, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha. Various letters and e- mail communications have been received. The relevant points of representation are summarised below:

• We object to countryside around settlement (CAS) land being used for development of an access road when there are car park alternatives within the settlement. The land directly to the south of Ceol Mara is designated CAS in order to protect the boundaries, and thus the integrity and special character, of small settlements. This is just referred to as ‘agricultural land’ within the application and its status as CAS with these greater implications needs to be recognised. We submit that such land should be protected from development. If there are possible alternative sites available within settlement zones surely these should be used? There are such alternative sites – There is extensive undeveloped land within the settlement zone immediately adjacent to the school which could be considered for a car park. This includes land directly in front of and just across the road from the school in the vicinity of the telephone exchange. This would protect the CAS and dispense with the need for an access road. There may also be other options.

Comment: Local Plan policy COM 1 gives a general presumption in favour of new community development within the countryside development control zones provided it complies with the relevant parts of Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 2 to STRAT DC

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com 6. Policy STRAT DC 2 is the only one relevant to the current proposal and whilst this policy is broadly restrictive in terms of new built development (except for appropriate small scale infill, rounding off, redevelopment, croft development or change of use of existing buildings – none of which are appropriate to describe the current proposal) it is silent with regard to changes of use of land to provide relatively minor engineering operations not resulting in ‘building development’. Nevertheless, policy STRAT DC 2 does state that in special cases, a locational need or exceptional circumstance may justify a development within the ‘countryside around settlement’, provided that the development does not erode the setting of the settlement or result in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence . In this case of the development proposed, it is considered that there is no practical or available alternative other than to take a relatively short new access through part of the CAS on the edge of the defined ‘settlement’ boundary and that this constitutes both a locational need and a special circumstance of sufficient weight to justify this aspect of the current proposal. It is not considered that the provision of this new access driveway would erode the setting of the settlement to any materially harmful extent.

It has been suggested by the objectors that there are other ‘more suitable’ locations for the car park, upon land within the existing settlement boundary which would not warrant the formation of an access through an area of CAS. Strictly this is not a relevant planning consideration, tasked as we are with determining the actual proposal submitted. However, the applicant (Director of Community Services) has stated, by way of background information, that no alternative land has been made available to the Council, either by the Gigha Heritage Trust or by any other private land owner. The proposed car park itself is appropriate community development within the ‘settlement’ boundary and is in accordance with all relevant policies within the development plan. The proposed car park has been located so that it would form part of an extended curtilage area to the existing school. There is no other available or possible means of access to this proposed car park other than through part of the CAS, and no suitable alternative site for a school car park has been offered. Indeed, there is no other suitable vacant land adjacent to the existing school boundaries. Any alternative car park would, therefore, have to be separated from the school. The applicant has stated that consideration was given to developing a much smaller lay- by in front of the school, but that this would not satisfy the demand for parking space. This also raised the questions of road safety due to difficulties associated with the provision of adequate sight lines.

• We note that practically half the length of the proposed new access road to the car park would be 6 metres wide. This is wider than the Campbeltown to Lochgilphead main road. We submit that this represents a very significant and unacceptable scale of development on land designated as CAS.

Comment: This is a single track private access some 40 metres in length with a total carriageway width (including any footways) of 3.5 metres. There is a double width section of approximately 15 metres in length and 6 metres wide adjacent to the junction with the Ardminish public road, to allow for vehicles entering/exiting to pass each other at that point clear of the main road. This arrangement avoids the possibility of vehicles entering the access having to reverse out onto the road in the event of meeting a vehicle exiting the car park.

• Currently only two staff members drive to this small school and they presently park close to Gigha Stores where there is a wide roadway and no obstruction is created. The Head Teacher does not drive and the two mainland-based staff members are picked up daily from the ferry by private hire. We therefore question the need for such a large car park. If a car parking facility is really

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com needed, there is an area of Gigha Heritage Trust land between the Stores and the small telephone exchange a mere few metres from the school gate. A compact section of this would be perfectly adequate for the very limited number of vehicles (including visitors) that are likely to require space. It goes without saying that construction costs would be hugely reduced, thus lessening the burden on the taxpayer.

Comment: This part of the proposal is for eight parking spaces. The applicant has stated a desire for these 8 spaces, consisting of 2 staff members, 2 school taxis, parent drop-off / pick-up parking, specialist teaching staff and deliveries. This is not a ‘large’ car park and the provision of eight off-road spaces within the curtilage of a primary school, where presently there are none, is not considered an unreasonable operational requirement. As previously stated, no alternative land has been made available for the provision of a car park elsewhere and speculation cannot form part of the proper consideration of the current planning application.

• The application is inaccurate and misleading as the submitted plan does not show the existing area of enlarged playground at the rear of the School House immediately adjacent to the school. This new second playground was created last year (2007).

Comment: This relatively small (140 square metres) new under-fives playground was the subject of a permission granted in January 2007 (06/02617/NID). This application was publicised by way of a press advertisement and by direct notification of adjoining neighbours (including ‘Ceol Mara’). No objections or other representations were received at that time. This under-fives playground does not form part of the current proposal and is not within the current application site boundary. There is, therefore, no requirement to show it on the current planning submission.

• The proposal to open up a primary school playground overlooked by residential property, and consequently leave children vulnerable to clandestine photography will not be looked upon kindly by the overseers of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. I refer not to myself or our neighbours of course but, given the open-plan nature of the grounds surrounding our respective properties, anyone could get close enough during our absence to be a threat.

Comment: The Director of Community Services as Applicant states that this proposal is to replace the area of playground lost due to a recent extension to the school building and in part to respond to comments raised by HMI(e) which noted a lack of a grassed area for play and physical activities. The current playground areas are already capable of being overlooked by the existing residential properties and from adjacent open land. I am not aware of any specific problems of ‘clandestine photography’ on Gigha, and this issue (if it exists at all), is primarily a matter for regulation and control through the appropriate agencies charged with the responsibility for child protection (foremost of which, is the applicant as Local Education Authority).

• We wonder if the need for a third playground has been fully assessed in terms of numbers and if such a development would be consistent with the provision of facilities for all children throughout Argyll. The projected school roll (based on August 6, 2008 statistics) is set to fall fairly steeply over the next few years. There are currently 29 children residing on Gigha up to Primary Seven leaving age and this situation is not likely to alter significantly. I have projected the

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com school roll as 24 for 2008; 24 for 2009; 23 for 2010; 21 for 2011; 17 for 2012; 13 for 2013 and 9 for the year 2014. Despite what may be read in certain sections of the national press, the island population has actually fallen in recent months from a peak of 150-plus to its present 142. We therefore feel that the proposed large playground is quite unnecessary.

Comment: The Director of Community Services as Applicant states that this proposal is to replace the area of playground lost due to a recent extension to the school building and in part to respond to comments raised by HMI(e) which noted a lack of a grassed area for play and physical activities. The proposed grassed play area is considered necessary by the applicant as Education Authority. No evidence has been submitted to either confirm or refute the alleged school roll projections, but whether a proposed development is ‘necessary’ or not is not a relevant material planning consideration.

• Former pupils have stated that the original playground was adequate for their needs. Indeed the school roll stood at 34 in the 1970s.

Comment: Education standards have altered significantly since the 1970’s and school facilities (both those required by statute and those desired on grounds of providing better schooling) are not as they once were. The original school playground has been largely eroded by virtue of an extension to the rear of the school upon land previously used for outdoor play. Again, the ‘need’ for the proposed development is not a relevant material planning consideration.

• We are saddened and dismayed to discover that, despite assurances from the then Project manager of the Gigha Heritage Trust, Alan Hobbit, who stated that no development would be permitted on Trust land below a line drawn from the southernmost house on the Raon Mor community housing cluster, this same body is now going back on its word by making hitherto inaccessible agricultural acreage available for development. My wife and I built Heather Lea on our chosen site based on that promise.

Comment: This is not a relevant material planning consideration.

• The proposed development will reduce the market value of our houses.

Comment: This is not a relevant material planning consideration.

• There are legal issues and we submit that the application may be premature as there are two sewage tanks, drains and water supply pipes under the application site. One septic tank serves Ceol Mara and the other serves the residential dwellings Bayview and The Old Nurse’s House plus Gigha Stores, the School House and the school itself. We have access rights for inspection and maintenance and feel that any development is therefore prohibited. Is it acceptable to build facilities for children over such sewage tanks? What would be the provision for our septic tank? We and the adjoining neighbours had not been consulted in any way prior to receiving the neighbour notification of this development and so have not been in a position to advise the applicant of these tanks.

Comment: The applicant is aware of the location of one below-ground septic tank and services within the application site and has advised that these services will be protected in accordance with the current Building Standards and relevant British and

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com European Standards. The applicant has stated that if, indeed, there is a second septic within the application site, then this will be protected in the same way. The application site is owned by the Gigha Heritage Trust. There is nothing to prevent a planning application being made for development upon land not within the ownership or control of the applicant. The presence of third party legal rights over land is not a relevant material planning consideration but is a civil matter between the various parties concerned.

• The land immediately in front of Ceol Mara is designated as ‘Green Belt’ in the Council’s current Local Plan.

Comment: There are no areas of ‘Green Belt’ on Gigha. The land referred to is within an area of ‘Countryside Around Settlement’ (CAS). The implications of development within the CAS have been explored in the assessment above.

• We would suffer substantial loss of amenity and privacy. For seventeen years we [Ceol Mara] enjoyed a private, peaceful rural position with open land on three sides, the field earmarked for the current development having been in continuous agricultural use throughout the twenty years we have owned Ceol Mara. We lost our privacy on the west side when the eight Fyne Homes houses were built on the opposite side of the public road, two of which were built directly facing us and almost on the roadside. Acceptance of the current proposal would result in our home being surrounded by development on the two remaining sides. The proposal for a third playground sited along our east border means that we would have playgrounds on both our east and north borders. While we did not object to the creation of a second playground [the under-fives playground granted in January 2007] as we support the school, we do now object strongly to the proposal for the rapid addition of a third playground. This would erode our privacy and our peace and the proposed development, by any standard, represents an unreasonable cumulative erosion of our privacy and amenity and, if approved, is an unequal stripping of the individual’s rights in what is supposed to be a democracy.

Comment: There is no doubt that the proposed development will have some consequences for the amenity and privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of both ‘Ceol Mara’ and ‘Heather Lea’. It is, however, not considered that any aspect of the development currently proposed would reduce residential privacy or amenity to such a degree that could reasonably be considered materially and unacceptably harmful to the interests of existing adjacent property owners. Both houses are adjacent to an existing and very long-established primary school; the only school on the island. Both houses are also within the defined Ardminish settlement boundary, an area within which appropriate development has long been supported by the Council’s land use planning strategy. The fact that Ceol Mara has long enjoyed the benefit of undeveloped agricultural land to its east and west boundaries owes more to circumstance than design. The same is true of the property Heather Lea. Despite the claimed ‘assurances’ from the landowner that this agricultural ground would not be developed, the land has long been susceptible to potential proposals for appropriate forms of development. An assessment of the impact of the development currently proposed has been carried out and is as stated elsewhere in this Report. Close relationships between village schools and adjoining residential property is not an unusual circumstance within small settlements. The Council’s Area Environmental Health Manager has commented that in his view the development proposed is unlikely to give rise to significant loss of amenity or nuisance.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com • This is an application by one Council department for a decision by a second department of the same Council. It will therefore require to be called in by the Scottish Government.

Comment: Although the Applicant is the Council’s Director of Community Services, it is not the case that this application is required to be ‘called in’ by the Scottish Government. Planning Advice Note 82 (May 2007), which gives advice on the operation of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007, states at Paragraph 21 that in relation to such local authority interest developments:

“planning authorities must notify Ministers where the proposed development, a) would be contrary to the development plan for the area; or b) has been the subject of a substantial body of objections.”

The proposed development is not contrary to the development plan. It is in accordance with the relevant policies of both the Structure Plan and the Argyll and Bute Local Plan as described in the planning assessment below.

The proposed development has not been the subject of a ‘substantial body of objections’. Paragraph 28 of PAN 82 states that:

“Scottish Ministers should be notified where the planning authority considers the strength of opposition is a significant material consideration, taking account of all of the following factors: (a) the number of representations against the proposal, in the context of the locality; (b) where objections are from a group or organisation, the extent to which it may be representative of the community ; and (c) the relevance , in planning terms, of those representations”.

Objections have been received from two separate residential households. This is not considered a large number of representations, even given the relatively small resident population within the vicinity of the application site. The proposed development is for a wider community benefit given that the primary school is the sole school on the island and serves the entire population. In this context, the number of representations received cannot be said to be ‘substantial’. Neither of the objections are from a community group or organisation; both represent the interests of individual householders. Indeed, the Gigha community is perhaps best represented by the Gigha Heritage Trust and it is the Trust themselves who own the application site and have suggested it as being appropriate for the required improvements to the school.

The relevance of the representations is limited primarily to the consideration of the privacy and amenity implications of the proposed development. Many other factors are argued within the representations received but these are at best only of marginal material relevance to the consideration of this planning application. Although privacy and amenity are, of course, legitimate and material local concerns, it is considered that the actual loss of privacy and/or amenity caused by the proposed development would not result in material harm, either in itself, or sufficient to outweigh the benefit to the wider community provided by these necessary improvements to school facilities.

The proposed development does not amount to a ‘departure’ to the provisions of the development plan. It is not considered that the objections can be construed as ‘substantial’ given the tests to determine such substance encompassed within PAN 82.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com The owner/occupier of Ceol Mara has also written refuting and contesting an original Members delegated (‘blue’) report on this planning application. Although this original report has now been withdrawn in favour of the current report, the relevant points raised are summarised below:

• It is pointed out that Ceol Mara does, in fact, have three windows within its eastern elevation. There would, therefore, be a serious loss of privacy which was completely ignored in the original report.

Comment: It is agreed that Ceol Mara does indeed have three windows to its east elevation, a secondary ground floor living room window, a ground floor bedroom window and a first floor bedroom window. The report now before Members has been amended to correct this omission. It is, however, disputed that the presence of these windows would result in any ‘serious loss of privacy’. These windows are some 19 metres from the nearest part of the proposed car park and play area, and are at least partially screened from the application site by existing trees and shrubs along a considerable part of the rear garden boundary of Ceol Mara. There is also a glazed conservatory at the front of this property with a glazed side wall facing the western end of the proposed car park. Although this aspect of the existing dwelling is not currently screened by existing trees or shrubs it is at some considerable distance from this part of the application site. It has already been acknowledged that the proposed development will cause some loss of residential amenity to the occupants of Ceol Mara, but that the actual loss of privacy and/or amenity caused by the proposed development would not result in material harm, either in itself, or sufficient to outweigh the benefit to the wider community provided by these necessary improvements to school facilities. It has further been recommended that any planning permission for the proposed development should be subject to a landscaping scheme which would include a tree planting belt along the southern part of the western application site boundary between the proposed car park and the eastern elevation of Ceol Mara.

• The original reported stated that a recent HMI(e) report highlighted a shortfall in safe and convenient staff and parent parking and a lack of appropriate grassed play space. We are interested to know from whom this information was gained? It has obviously not been considered necessary to check the facts. We find no reference whatsoever to this assertion in either of the school’s two most recent HMI(e) reports.

Comment: This information was received from the Director of Community Services as Applicant and Education Authority. It appears that some of the assertions made by the Applicant in this regard have been misunderstood and the report before Members has been amended accordingly.

• The original report stated that there is no other vacant land adjacent to the existing school boundaries. This is not the case. The Council owns the adjoining School House, the front and side gardens of which could be utilised to provide school parking and a safe drop off point for children adjacent to the school.

Comment: The existing School House is not ‘vacant land’ as intended by that term within the initial report; it is an existing semi-detached dwellinghouse within its own modest private curtilage area, part of which has already been utilised to provide an extended under 5’s playground. Nevertheless, the report now before Members has been amended to clarify this point. The existing front and side gardens of School

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com House are very small and not appropriate to provide the required number of parking spaces plus the turning areas necessary to meet the Council’s highway safety standards.

• The original report stated that ‘there is no other means of access to the proposed car park other than through the area of Countryside Around Settlement’, and that this represents a ‘special case’ with regard to Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 2, given the absence of any alternative means of access to the site. These statements are completely untrue. Access to the proposed car park would be possible from the east side of Heather Lea through land within the settlement zone. There is, therefore, no justification to make a ‘special case’ to develop in the CAS.

Comment: It is accepted that in theory it could be possible to serve the proposed car park area by taking a new access road between the dwellings Heather Lea and Ferry House and that this route would indeed avoid the CAS and be wholly contained within the defined ‘settlement’ boundary. The difficulty with this is that this land is not in the Council’s control and has not been made available for this purpose. The Director of Community Services as Applicant has now confirmed that an enquiry was made regarding the use of land between Heather View and Ferry Cottage for use as an access to the proposed car park but that the lease of this land was declined by the Gigha Heritage Trust and is, therefore, unavailable.

• With regard to your policies relating to development within the C.A.S. we would refer you to your own enforcement notice, reference 06/00196/ENFOTH. We expect you to apply policy consistently.

Comment: The planning enforcement case referred to relates to the erection of a dwellinghouse within part of the Lunga estate near Ardfern. The alleged unlawful building consisted of two static caravans which had been encompassed in a timber framed structure with a sheet metal roof, with the addition of a lean-to garage. The site of the alleged unauthorised dwelling is within an area of CAS. It is not considered that the enforcement case referred to and the current proposal which involves the construction of a short access to serve development wholly within the ‘settlement’ boundary are comparable. The Ardfern enforcement case related to a substantial new dwellinghouse built within the CAS. and clearly contrary to policy (not only policy relating to development within the CAS). The current proposal is considered to accord with all relevant policy as outlined above and I can find no ‘inconsistency’ in this regard.

• The original report stated that the proposed site of the new play area / car park is at a significantly lower level with respect to our adjacent private garden and that the eastern boundary of our property is demarked by several mature trees and bushes. These statements are also untrue. The level of the application site is virtually the same as those of our garden. The incline runs from north to south in both. There are no trees or bushes shielding the proposed car park from our view and our amenity, particularly privacy and visual impact, would be severely compromised. We contest that a car park of eight vehicles where hitherto there was nothing is insignificant in terms of our privacy.

Comment: The application site falls from north to south but also falls towards its south eastern corner, towards which there is indeed a relative change in levels. There are several mature trees and shrubs along much of the rear garden boundary of Ceol Mara. It is accepted, however, that this planting does not extend the total length of the

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com rear garden boundary. It has not been suggested that the application site would be ‘screened from view’ from Ceol Mara, merely that such vegetation would lessen the visual impact of any development taking place on this land.

• We question the impartiality of the planning report and whether there might even be a degree of collusion in favour of the applicant. We note correspondence to suggest that the applicant provided the information with regard to the HMI(e) report and that this information is a misrepresentation of fact made in order to support this application communicated to the case officer by a member of the applicant’s department and that this misinformation was incorporated in the report. We are deeply concerned by this and consider this a matter worthy of the notice of the Ombudsman.

Comment: The allegation of ‘collusion’ and partiality is refuted. Whilst it is true that the background information provided by the Director of Community Services as Applicant with regard to the HMI(e) report has subsequently been found to be partly inaccurate, the proper planning assessment of this case does not rely in any way whatsoever upon the accuracy of this information. As has previously been stated, the ‘need’ for this development is not a material planning consideration. There is no onus upon the Applicant in this case to prove the extent to which the proposed development is required. Although it is agreed that wholly accurate and informative background information would have been helpful in this case, the planning assessment of the proposed development does not rely on it to any material extent and the report now before Members has been amended to accurately reflect the correct position as stated in this regard by the Director of Community Services as Applicant.

Another letter (dated 17 th January 2009) has now been received from the owner / occupier of Ceol Mara raising additional points following correspondence between the objector and the Council. The additional points raised are summarised below:

• The drawing titled ‘Road Access Details Number 02, June 2008’ accompanying the planning application is incorrect. This shows the verge between the tarred north-south Gigha road and out boundary wall to be 2.5 metres wide. The true measurement is approximately 1 metre, the drawing misrepresenting the position by a factor of two and a half times. We consider this mistake significant and potentially favouring the application as we question whether the legally required visibility splays will be met. We note that the incorrect drawing was prepared by the Applicant’s own department (Community Services). We note also that while this incorrect drawing comprises one of the planning application papers available for inspection at Gigha Post Office, it was not included with the planning application papers issued by your department on the website. It was therefore not made available for wider public scrutiny. What was the reason for this?

Comment: It is understood from the Director of Community Services as Applicant that the drawing referred to was issued to the Gigha Post Office in error. This drawing does not form part of the submitted planning application documents under consideration and therefore has not appeared with the application on-line. Nevertheless, the drawing submitted with the planning application, titled ‘Site Plan – Proposed Car Park & Playground – Drawing No. 01 dated June 2008’ does appear to illustrate road verges with a width of approximately 2.5 metres. Although the information relating to the road verge width is indicative in that it is outwith the boundaries of the application site, concern has been raised that the suggested visibility splays requested by the Council’s Area Roads Manager may

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com be incapable of being met. Although the proposed access has already been examined and found to be satisfactory by the engineer in view of the matter raised the engineer has been asked to revisit this matter to confirm whether the recommended visibility splays of 2 metres by 90 metres are definitely achievable. This clarification has been requested and should be available for Members at the Meeting.

• In our letter of 16.12.08 we wrote with reference to the proposed access to the car park through Countryside Around Settlement (CAS). The assertion that “there is no other means of access to the proposed car park other than through this zone” is incorrect since there is access lying entirely within the settlement zone as defined in our previous correspondence [i.e. the land between Heather Lea and Ferry View] . We have now had the opportunity to consult more widely on this and believe that any recommendation for access through the land designated as CAS would, in the circumstances, be contrary to the Development Plan for Argyll and Bute.

Comment: This ‘alternative’ means of access is not a viable proposition. The Director of Community Services as Applicant has confirmed that this land was considered to serve the proposed car park but its lease was (and is) not available from the Gigha Heritage Trust. There is, therefore, no alternative means of access other than through the CAS. The policy assessment of this matter contained within this Report is, therefore, an accurate one. This aspect of the proposal is not contrary to the Development Plan for the reasons stated.

• We are pleased that the misinformation that HMIe recommended car parking for Gigha School has been corrected. We would add that HMIe has not recommended the proposed external play space either. It merely noted that there was no grass area for play. It would seem that this application is not supported in any respect by HMIe 2005 or 2007 reports. We would urge you to reread these reports.

Comment: As has previously been stated, the ‘need’ for this proposed development does not form a material part of the assessment of this planning application. The Applicant as Education Authority does not have to prove that a need for the proposed development exists. Previous statements were made by the Applicant in respect of the HMIe report(s) and these statements were subsequently found to have been, in part, misrepresented and have been corrected in this report. Two of the three ‘Main Points for Action’ contained within the HMIe report for Gigha Primary School dated 14 th June 2005 are to “improve arrangements for play in the Primary 1 and Primary 2” and to “address issues relating to accommodation as highlighted in this report”. Section 6 of this HMIe report states that, “The sloping playground was enclosed and provided a safe play area. However, the school had no grass area for play or physical activity”.

• We are unaware that there is a disabled classroom assistant employed by the school. Registered disabled? Entitled to a designated disabled parking space? We shall be grateful for clarification from you as to who this staff member is.

Comment: This not relevant to the proper consideration of this planning application. It is entirely reasonable that the Council as Education Authority should seek to improve general facilities at a primary school. The Director of Community Services as Applicant has stated that, “The size of the car park is to provide [in part] a designated disabled parking space as required by the Disability

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com and Discrimination Act plus parking for staff, visitors, deliveries and to provide safe turning and drop off for pupils. The Council provides these facilities to a majority of primary schools”.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/01353/COU

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

The land required for the new playground extension and car parking / turning area falls within the Ardminish ‘settlement’ boundary as defined within the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’. The land required for the new access driveway is outwith the ‘settlement’ boundary and within a wider area of land designated within the Plan as ‘countryside around settlement’.

Local Plan Policy COM 1 states that,

“There is a presumption in favour of new or improved community facilities provided:

(A) In the settlements, the development is of a form, location and scale consistent with [Structure Plan] policy STRAT DC 1;

(B) In the countryside development control zones, the development is of a form, location and scale consistent with [Structure Plan] policies STRAT DC 2 to 6;

(C) They respect the landscape / townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area…”

In this case, the majority of the development consisting of the extended playground area and the new car park and turning areas is located within the defined settlement and well located immediately adjacent to the existing school site, reflecting the townscape and landscape character of the surrounding area. Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 1, ‘Development Within the Settlements’ states that within the minor settlements (including Ardminish) encouragement will be given to ‘small scale’ development compatible with the essentially rural settlement location and which is not incompatible with the close configuration of land uses to be found in such settlement areas.

The area of land required to provide the new access and driveway is located immediately outwith the defined settlement boundary and on the edge of an area of ‘countryside around settlement’. Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 2, ‘Development Within the Countryside Around Settlements’ is broadly restrictive to new built development (except for appropriate small scale infill, rounding off, redevelopment, croft development or change of use of existing buildings – none of which are appropriate to the current proposal) but is silent with regard to changes of use of land to provide relatively minor engineering operations not resulting in ‘building development’. Nevertheless, policy STRAT DC 2 does state that in special cases, a locational need or exceptional circumstance may justify a development within the ‘countryside around settlement’ zone, provided that the development does not “erode the setting of the settlement or result in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence”.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

This application is made by the Council’s Community Services department and proposes improvements to the existing Gigha Primary School consisting of a change of use of approximately 0.1 hectares of land to provide a new grassed playground

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com area immediately to the rear (south) of the school, with a new car parking area adjacent and the provision of a new vehicular access to this car park to be taken from the public road north of Ardminish and immediately to the south of an existing detached dwellinghouse known as ‘Ceol Mara’.

An extension to the primary school was granted planning permission in June 2007 (Permission No. 07/00595/DET refers). This large single storey extension significantly reduced the useable area of the existing playground and it is now proposed to enlarge the remaining playground area by extending it to the south. The new playground area will directly adjoin the existing area and will provide an additional 325 square metres of grassed ‘soft-play’ space. The existing stone boundary wall will be retained between these two areas though new gateways will be created within it in order to provide pedestrian access between the separate areas.

Immediately to the south of the new playground area it is proposed to provide eight new car parking spaces with associated turning area. The total area of the proposed parking spaces and turning area will be an additional 325 square metres. Currently, the primary school has no dedicated off-road parking.

It is proposed to take a new vehicular access to the proposed parking area off the public road to the west of the site. This would involve a new connection to the public road and a new driveway some 40 metres long connecting the new car park with the public road. This proposed access and driveway would be adjacent to the garden ground of a residential property ‘Ceol Mara’ and would be positioned approximately 14 to 15 metres from the front windows of this dwelling.

C. Built Environment

The school has houses to each side and an access road to the front. There is no other available or operationally suitable location for the new play area and car park other than the proposed location on the rough grazing land to the rear of the school. There is no existing car park within the school grounds and this results in children being dropped off and picked up by vehicles either parking on the public road or using the customer car park for the Post Office and entailing a walk along the public road.

The land required for the new play area and car park is visually well contained within the settlement being adjoined by the school itself to the north, by the garden ground to a residential property ‘Heather Lea’ to the east and by the garden ground of ‘Ceol Mara’ to the west. The wider visual impact of the proposed play area and car park is considered to be minimal within the context of the surrounding development and would not harm the landscape / townscape character or amenity of this part of the existing settlement or conflict to any material extent with the existing adjacent land uses, all of which are private residential dwellings. It is not considered that the use of this relatively small area of additional land as a school play area and car park would be materially detrimental to the amenities or privacy of the occupiers of the existing adjacent dwellinghouses. The proposal represents enlarged operational ground to serve an existing school with an existing and finite number of children and staff.

The proposed playground and car park would be acceptably located with respect to the dwelling ‘Ceol Mara’; located at the end of its garden and separated from the house itself by a distance of some 19 metres. There are three windows to the east elevation of ‘Ceol Mara’ (the side facing the proposed play area/car park) , a secondary living room window and two bedroom windows; one at ground floor level and one at first floor. There is also an existing conservatory at the front of the dwelling

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com with a glazed side wall facing towards the application site. The eastern garden boundary of this house for some of its length is, however, demarked by several mature trees and bushes and by a low clipped hedge. Part of the proposed site of the new play ground/car park is also at a slightly lower level with respect to the adjacent private garden ground of ‘Ceol Mara’; the land forming this part of the application site slopes away from the rear boundary of the adjacent dwelling towards the south east corner of the application site. Although the proposed extended play area/new car park would extend the operational ground of the school immediately to the rear of the private garden of ‘Ceol Mara’, it is not considered that any attendant loss of privacy or amenity would result in any material or unacceptable additional harm to the residential amenity of this dwelling, particularly given the separation distances between this part of the application site and the existing windows to Ceol Mara. In addition, the benefit to the wider community provided by these necessary improvements to school facilities carries significant weight, considered sufficient to offset any loss of amenity there might be to ‘Ceol Mara’ caused by this aspect of the proposal. It is suggested that, if approved, this permission should be subject to a condition requiring a substantial new tree planting scheme along the southern part of the western boundary of the application site adjacent to the rear garden boundary of Ceol Mara, that being the section of joint boundary not currently demarked by existing trees.

The dwelling ‘Heather Lea’, located immediately to the south east of the existing school, is a modern detached bungalow that shares its western boundary with the existing school playground and the rough grazing land to the south. The proposed extended playground and car park would be sited upon this existing grazing ground area and would therefore adjoin the side boundary of the garden ground of ‘Heather Lea’. This boundary currently has very little in the way of physical demarcation and the north eastern corner of the application site extends to within approximately 8 metres of the south western corner of this residential bungalow at its closest point. Although ‘Heather Lea’ has no habitable room windows directly facing the application site (it has two side facing windows; a bathroom window and a bedroom window but the outlook from both of these is currently obscured, at least partially, by existing garden sheds within the curtilage of Heather Lea), it is clear that the proposed use of this adjoining land as a children’s playground and school car park will have some attendant loss of amenity for the occupiers of ‘Heather Lea’, particularly upon the use of the garden ground of this property.

Given, however, that this dwelling already shares its common boundary with a primary school and its associated playground, it is not considered that any additional loss of amenity caused by the proposed development will translate as a materially significant increase in the harm caused to the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of this existing adjacent dwellinghouse, sufficient to warrant the refusal of this application. Likewise, the benefit to the wider community provided by these necessary improvements to school facilities carries significant weight, considered sufficient to offset any limited diminution in amenity to ‘Heather Lea’ caused by this aspect of the proposal. It is further considered that any loss of amenity caused by this proposal with regard to ‘Heather Lea’ could be significantly reduced by a planning condition requiring a substantial new boundary fence or wall and a tree planting scheme along the eastern boundary of the application site.

This part of the proposed development is considered acceptable in accordance with Local Plan policy COM 1 and Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 1.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com D. Archaeological Matters

The application site is located within a larger area identified as having some potential to contain items of archaeological interest. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service have advised that previous excavations on either side of the development site have failed to uncover items of interest; in addition, given the shallow nature of any excavations necessary for the proposed development it is considered unlikely that the development will have a significant adverse impact upon archaeological resources.

E. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.

The proposed vehicular access driveway to the new car park is, by necessity, within the adjacent area of ‘countryside around settlement’. There is no other available means of access to the proposed car park other than through this zone and the proposal represents the shortest route; a distance of some 40 metres. This would comprise a single-track 3.5 metre wide road with a double width section at the junction with the public road to provide a passing place, 6 metres wide and approximately 15 metres long. It is considered that the unavoidable necessity of providing this short driveway through part of the countryside around settlement represents a ‘special case’ with regard to Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 2, given the absence of any alternative means to access the site. The locational need for this driveway to pass through a small area of ‘countryside around settlement’ in order to serve a development wholly within the adjacent ‘settlement’ boundary is considered to be an exceptional circumstance sufficient to justify this part of the proposal in terms of the policy. It is not considered that this short length of access would erode the character of the settlement nor would it lead to settlement coalescence. Nor would this engineering operation result in any form of ‘ribbon development’, particularly as it would not involve the erection of any buildings or substantial above-ground structures.

The proposed access driveway would be situated a substantial distance from the bungalow ‘Heather Lea’; approximately 18 metres from this existing dwelling at its closest point and some 10 metres to the south west of the nearest part of the residential garden ground to this property. It is not considered that the proposed new access or driveway would have any materially detrimental impact upon the privacy or amenity of this existing dwelling or upon the use of its garden ground.

This aspect of the proposal would, however, impact upon the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of ‘Ceol Mara’. This detached two storey property is oriented to face south. Almost all of its habitable room windows are to the south and the route of the proposed access driveway is through rough grazing land immediately beyond the southern boundary of the garden. The boundary of the application site at its closest point is some 12 metres from the front windows of this dwelling, and closer still to the existing conservatory to the front of Ceol Mara, although the actual route of the roadway itself would be between 14 and 15 metres away from the front wall of the house. Although the route of the proposed new access driveway would be upon land at a slightly lower level than that of this part of the adjacent private garden ground of ‘Ceol Mara’, there is currently no substantial physical demarcation to the southern boundary of the cartilage of this dwellinghouse. The proposed access itself will have very little impact when viewed from the front windows of ‘’Ceol Mara,’ but on the occasions when it is in use vehicles will pass in front of the house.

Nevertheless, the distance between the front windows of this property and the proposed access is a significant one – almost 15 metres. Although the construction of

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com a new driveway across the front windows of this dwelling house will have some impact upon the amenity and privacy currently enjoyed by the occupants of this dwellinghouse, it is not considered that this impact would result in materially significant harm to the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of this dwellinghouse to such an extent which would warrant the refusal of this application on the grounds of an inappropriate relationship between the proposed access and the existing dwelling. In addition, the benefit to the wider community provided by these necessary improvements to school facilities carries significant weight. It is further considered that any loss of amenity caused by this proposal with regard to ‘Ceol Mara’ could be significantly reduced by a planning condition requiring a substantial new boundary fence or wall and a tree planting scheme along the northern boundary of this part of the application site.

The Council’s Area Environmental Health Manager has commented that it is not considered that any aspect of the development proposed is likely to give rise to nuisance or significant loss of amenity.

Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com