Argyll and Bute Council Development Services

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______

Reference No : 09/01182/PP

Planning Hierarchy : Local

Applicant : Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd

Proposal : Variation of Condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET for erection of new linkspan; infilling works with rock armour sea wall to create extended marshalling area and associated infrastructure works to read 'At no time shall vehicles and passengers embark or disembark from both linkspans at the same time'.

Site Address : 18 Marine Parade, Hunters Quay, Dunoon, Argyll, PA23 8HJ ______

DECISION ROUTE

(i) Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Variation of Condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET to read ‘ At no time shall vehicle and passengers embark or disembark from both linkspans at the same time’.

(ii) Other specified operations

• N/A. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and reasons along with the informatives detailed below. ______

(C) HISTORY:

Planning permission 05/00220/DET granted on 17 th March 2006 for the erection of new linkspan; infilling works with rock armour sea wall to create extended marshalling area; and associated infrastructure works.

The Area Roads Managers consultation response dated 21 st June 2005 relative to this permission stated:

“In order to control traffic loadings on the junction and immediate road network, the applicant shall not operate the service from anymore than one linkspan at any given time”.

This requirement was drafted into condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET, which the applicant now wishes to vary.

Enforcement complaint 08/00123/ENFBOCC received on 18 th April 2008 regarding the suspected breach of condition 12 planning permission 05/00220/DET; see associated report elsewhere on this agenda.

Planning application 09/00631/VARCON for the removal of condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET was refused by the Bute and Cowal Area Committee on 26 th June 2009 on the basis that ‘There has been no change to the operational requirements and condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET already contains flexibility for using both linkspans in terms that written approval can be given by the Planning Authority to cover peak trading such as Cowal Games and maintenance. There is therefore no necessity to remove condition 12’. ______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads Manager (memo dated 17 th August 2009): No objection.

‘This location is on A815 Marine Parade, Hunters Quay Dunoon. Improvements have recently been carried out to enable safer access and egress for this location, whilst not compromising the safety of any group of road users. This will improve the flow of traffic from the adopted road and minimise the risk of queuing traffic on the A815. On discussions with Strathclyde Police they supported any improvements which would reduce queuing traffic, both on the road and other adjacent areas. The change to this condition would allow a quicker more efficient service both to incoming and outgoing travellers.

It would also allow flexibility to enable maintenance and repairs to be carried out without detriment to service. In 2008 in after investigation and discussions with Strathclyde Police, Argyll and Bute Council bought signage to effect an efficient one way system to Western Ferries enabling a faster transfer of vehicles from one side of the River Clyde to other when coupled with the use of both link spans. This set up has been successfully utilised for Cowal Highland Gathering and is available to accommodate possible traffic increases due to Road Closures to the north of Cowal.’

Hunters Quay Community Council (letter dated 4 th September 2009): Objection.

The Community Council oppose in the strongest possible terms the removal, or any variation to condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET. Contrary to the claims of Western that this alteration would reduce noise and pollution it was the view of all present from their direct explicit experience of living in Hunters Quay that this alteration would in actual fact increase traffic flow, noise and pollution and further degrade our community to visitors and residents alike and be a thoroughly unwelcome development.

Dunoon Community Council (letter dated 19 th August 2009): Objection.

Since the original condition was imposed there has been no alteration or improvement to the road in question, nor has there been any reported drop in the volume of traffic In such circumstances there can be no justification for the removal of any of the restrictions imposed by condition 12.

The applicant can already under condition 12 obtain permission to waive the restrictions in the event of a breakdown of the new linkspan or similar emergency or, with prior written permission, in periods of extreme pressure such as Cowal Games.

This application is, in effect, simply a repetition of that presented at the June Meeting of Bute & Cowal Area Committee which the committee rejected.

Kilmun Community Council (letter dated 12.10.09): Support.

The community council considers that alterations requested will increase traffic safety during peak times.

Head of Public Protection : response awaited.

In view of issues raised by objectors in relation to noise and other nuisance, the Head of Public Protection has been asked to comment and his views will be reported at the meeting.

______

(E) PUBLICITY:

Under article 9 neighbour notification procedure and Section 34 advertisement published 21 st August 2009, expired 11 th September 2009. Six letters of representation have been received from the following:

• Mrs. E. Leslie (letter dated 24 th August 2009) Tullyard, 4A Eccles Road, Hunters Quay, Dunoon, PA23 8LA. • Stuart Maclaughlan (letter dated 30 th August 2009), 8 Chapel Close, Clowne, Mr. Chesterfield Derbyshire, S43 4PB. • James Donaldson (letter dated 31 st August 2009), Tigh-Na-Mara, 6 Hazel Gardens, Toward, Dunoon, PA23 7SW. • Fulton RN and Susan M McInnes (letter dated 1 st September 2009), The Quarterdeck, 265 Marine Parade, Hunters Quay, Dunoon, PA23 8HN. • Neil Kay (e-mail dated 3 rd September 2009) from [email protected] . • J Cameron Smith (letter dated 3 rd September 2009) 4-6 Auchamore Road, Dunoon, PA23 7DY.

The points raised are summarised below. In addition, Councillor Dick Walsh (e- mail dated 18 September 2009) has withdrawn an earlier holding objection.

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

(i) Summary of issues raised i. I am very concerned by the level of noise generated when the drawbridge on ferries are lowered onto either linkspan and when vehicles board or leave ferries over the drawbridge

Comment: Reduced vessel movements between linkspans would help to reduce any associated noise from the ferry terminal. Western Ferries have also advised that additional buffering is soon to be installed to the new linkspan which should help ensure transitional noises are minimised. ii. The new application if approved would allow them to dock and/or leave from both linkspans simultaneously.

Comment: The proposed rewording of condition 12 would prevent simultaneous embarking and/or disembarking from both linkspans. iii. It would allow Western to use both linkspans which apart from passenger and driver confusion could lead to increased number of sailings generating greater traffic flow and associated noise and pollution.

Comment: Vehicle management and marshalling at the ferry terminal can control effective vehicle movements. There is no restriction on the number of vessel sailings. iv. If approved this would lead to increased noise and air pollution locally and lead to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion.

Comment: This application will lead to reduced vessel movement between both linkspans thereby reducing noise and fuel consumption. The ability to use both linkspans also reduces the length of time cars wait within the terminal prior to embarking a vessel. v. A strong case could be made for Western providing a passenger terminal for foot passengers before granting approval for further development on site.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration relevant to this application. vi. The original condition 12 completely restricted the possible number of dockings and sailing from Hunters Quay and thereby restricts and quantified the noise level, pollution and traffic flow from the terminal.

Comment: This condition was imposed in the interest of traffic management and to prevent congestion not in the interest of restricting the number of sailings and any associated noise or pollution. As commented above it is considered that this application will improve traffic movements and prevent future congestion. vii. Noise disruption from 6am until 12 midnight from loud banging and safety announcement etc.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration relevant to this application. viii. Current traffic volumes seriously affect residents on Marine Parades ability to access their properties. Cases of vehicles speeding to catch ferry, rubbish being thrown from cars windows and horn blowing have been experienced by residents trying to exit/entre their properties. Heaven forbid Western being allowed to increase their operations which alteration of condition 12 would allow.

Comment: The Area Roads Manager has raised no objection to this application. ix. If condition 12 is altered in line with the applicants wishes then the ability to increase the number of docking/sailings or alternative docking/sailings form alternative linkspans.

Comment: The re-wording of condition 12 ensures that simultaneous use of both linkspans to embark and disembark at the same time is not permitted. x. The applicant can at present under condition 12 obtain permission to waive the restriction in an emergency or during busy periods such as Cowal Games.

Comment: It is Western Ferries choice to submit this application, which must be considered on its own merits. xi. There has been no alteration or improvement to the road nor has the volume of traffic reduced. This being the case there is no justification to relax condition 12.

Comment: The Area Roads Manager has raised no objection to this application on road safety grounds. xii. This is not a simple modification of a planning condition; it is a radical change and transformation of use and function of the facilities at Hunters Quay. If the intentions behind the present application had been made plain in the original application it would never have been allowed, and it should not be allowed now.

Comment: Regardless of the circumstances pertinent at the time of approving the construction of the linkspan, this application has to be assessed entirely on its own merits. xiii. Any prohibition on simultaneous use of linkspans is meaningless, misleading, and redundant because the company itself had made clear prior to the rejected application that it would never do this anyway on safety grounds.

Comment: This application will be assessed entirely on its own merits. xiv. If this present planning application is accepted it will have fundamental and adverse effects on other Council plans which will impact directly and adversely on the interests of many parties. The application would give Western Ferries the capacity to route all vehicle-carrying ferry traffic through Kirn and Hunters Quay, including the residual that presently goes though the town centre. This raises matters of procedure, substance and public auditing. The Council has spent millions of pounds of local and national taxpayers' money on a new public linkspan and associated infrastructure at Dunoon Breakwater. Permitting this application has a potentially serious and permanent adverse diversionary effect on the plans that the Council has for promoting the Dunoon town centre to Gourock town centre vehicle-carrying ferry service, town centre development, local traffic plans, and local development and regeneration.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration relevant to this application

xv. If Western Ferries wishes the use of a second linkspan on any given operational day for any purpose stated in the application, it can use the one at Dunoon town centre which is about the same distance from McInroys Point as is Hunters Quay. Even if a regular half-hourly public service is created using the new linkspan at Dunoon town centre, that linkspan would still have sufficient spare capacity to satisfy any reasonable needs that Western may have for a second or alternative linkspan on any operational day, consistent with, and supportive of the Council's plans for encouraging use of these town centre facilities.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration relevant to this application .

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

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

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

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Yes. Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd have submitted a statement in support of their application, received on 11 th September 2009. This statement is reproduced below:

‘Noise Levels

The new linkspan has been in full operational use since November 2007 and prior to this process to remove/reword Condition 12, Western Ferries has only received one anonymous complaint with regards to noise levels at Hunters Quay. This complaint raised two issues firstly the safety announcement and secondly, the noises associated with the berthing and unloading of the vessels.

The safety announcement is a statutory requirement imposed and monitored by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. This announcement has to be made at a sound level where it is audible by our customers and it has to be broadcast at the beginning of the crossing.

There will always be a level of noise associated with Western Ferries’ operations however these are regularly monitored to ensure that they are kept to a minimum. Following a recent inspection of both linkspans, Western Ferries will shortly be installing additional buffering to the new linkspan as well as making other minor improvements. The vessels’ buffering will be checked and replaced if required, during the forthcoming dry-dock period. Therefore, I am hopeful that the combination of all these improvements will ensure that any transitional noises are minimised.

Western Ferries operates in close proximity to two hotels, The Hunters Quay and the Royal Marine, and a block of flats. Neither the owners of the hotels or the residents of the flats have made any complaint to Western Ferries with regards the current noise levels despite the fact that they are much closer to Western Ferries’ operations.

The obligations on Western Ferries with regards to minimising noise levels are not restricted to this planning application, but represent an ongoing responsibility in recognition of our proximity to our neighbours.

Operational Use of Both Linkspans

Objections lodged as part of the rejected application were made on the basis that the removal of Condition 12 would result in additional noise, pollution and congestion. The fact, borne out by operational experience, is that the flexibility to alternate between linkspans reduces all of the above. The availability of two operational linkspans gives Western Ferries the ability to better maintain its current service level and at the same time reduce unnecessary vessel movements that in turn reduce the transitional noises between the vessels and the linkspans. By minimising vessel movements, this also reduces the amount of fuel used and therefore reduces emissions.

In the scenarios detailed below, the linkspans are used on an alternating basis and not on a simultaneous basis.

Vessel Maintenance

Western Ferries use the old linkspan for scheduled vessel maintenance on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. The vessel scheduled for maintenance will come off service, berth at the old linkspan, unload and then come off service. When the maintenance is completed, the vessel will re-enter service by loading at the old linkspan and then disengage.

If operations were restricted to using the new linkspan, the vessel would first need to berth at the new linkspans, unload and disengage. Then transfer to the old linkspan and then engage with it. This process would be reversed in full when the vessel comes back into service.

End of Shifts .

At the end of the working day both linkspans are used for over-night berthing, the MV Sound of Scarba will come off service and tie up at 10.00pm on the new linkspan. The MV Sound of Shuna comes off service at 11.30pm Monday through Thursday and 00.30am Friday through Sunday. The reason the vessels tie up this way is that firstly it means that the early sailings and the late sailings use the old linkspan, which as it is further away from our neighbours. Secondly, it again minimises unnecessary vessel movements between the old and new linkspans.

Ambulance Sailings

Western Ferries provides a free late service to enable the swift transfer of critical medical patients from the local area to Inverclyde and Glasgow hospitals. The MV Sound of Shuna currently provides these sailings (between midnight and 6.00am) from the old linkspan. Again, this is done to minimise any disruption to our neighbours.

If operations were restricted to the new linkspan, then these sailings could not only cause more disruption to our neighbours but also because it can take longer to untie a vessel from the new linkspan it could potentially delay these emergency sailings.

Reducing Congestion

The combination of the enlarged marshalling area and Western Ferries’ normal service level ensures that in the majority of occasions the build-up of traffic never spills out on the main road network. Generally, there is a significant over-capacity of deck space at our current operating levels.

Nevertheless, any disruptions to the normal service level or an unexpected large increase in demand could quickly result in the build-up of traffic on the main road network. Therefore, the ability to accelerate the service level by switching between linkspans reduces the potential of traffic spilling on to the main road network.

A build up of traffic on the public highway affects our neighbours by way of increased noise levels and emissions from idling vehicles. However, the most significant impact of this congestion is the adverse effect that it has on road safety.

Whilst Condition 12 currently permits Western Ferries to switch linkspans “in an emergency” situation, for example adverse weather conditions, and unscheduled maintenance, this does not cover all eventualities. Therefore if operations were restricted to the new linkspan, whilst Western Ferries had the ability to clear any congestion on the main road network, it would be unable to do so.

With the ability to alternate between linkspans, Western Ferries can increase its frequency from four departures an hour to five. Therefore, the suggestion, contained within the original objections, that by removing this condition, traffic levels would double is mathematically impossible. However, this one additional sailing (40 cars) will reduce the build up of traffic on the adjacent roads, it will minimise any disruption to the flow of traffic, it will reduce noise levels and emissions from idling vehicles and importantly reduce the likelihood of a road traffic incident.

It is important to stress that even at this accelerated pace that the linkspans are not used simultaneously and that this accelerated pace does not create the increased demand; it does however reduce congestion.

The most recent example of this was during the closure of the Rest and be Thankful (A83) following the recent RAF Tornado incident. Western Ferries’ quick response to this closure ensured that disruption to the main road network, in and around the terminal, was minimised.

Peak Periods of Demand

The first real opportunity Western Ferries had to prove the benefits of alternating between linkspans, during peak periods of demand, was demonstrated during the Cowal Games 2008. In combination with the one-way system operated by the Strathclyde Police and agreement from the Council, Western Ferries were able to clear traffic from the neighbouring roads, some two hours earlier than the previous years. This system was repeated last weekend for the Cowal Games 2009.

The fact that the Council has approved this mode of operation, provides a level of comfort with regards to their appreciation of the significant benefits of reducing the congestion in and around the terminal.

Western Ferries has developed a good working relationship with the local Strathclyde Police force and during periods of peak demand or localised congestion, they have been fully in favour of the accelerated service on the basis that it makes a significant contribution to improving road safety.

Economic Impact

Western Ferries provides almost 31,000 sailings a year between Gourock and Dunoon and last year carried approximately 1.3m passengers and 0.6m vehicles. Western Ferries therefore provides a key transportation link for locals, visitors and businesses. Our customers rely on the service to take them to school, to work, to pursue their leisure interests, to access shops, and hospitals. Local businesses rely on Western Ferries for their supplies and to bring tourists to the local area. Therefore, our services play a strategic role in the economic viability and development of the local community.

The responsibility for Western Ferries is to meet and surpass these expectations; this is in part achieved by being able to continue the service, which is itself dependant on the availability of our linkspans. Two operational linkspans provides greater operational flexibility to the overriding benefit to our customers and the local communities as a whole.

Any disruptions to our service would transfer this traffic on to the wider road network, Loch Lomond, the Rest and be Thankful and the Lock Eck road. Therefore, the availability of two linkspans reduces the likelihood of our service being suspended and thereby keeps additional traffic off these arterial routes.

In Conclusion

Western Ferries fully appreciates the increased risks associated with simultaneously use of both linkspans to load or unload at the same time and is therefore content to be bound by the ongoing restriction as defined in this application. The initial traffic management concerns that resulted in the creation of Condition 12 have not materialised in fact the availability of two linkspans has reduced congestion on the main road. Significantly, the Council, in recognition of the negative aspects associated with localised congestion, has already endorsed Western Ferries’ ability to accelerate its service when needed. Western Ferries has also received the support of the local Police force for its efforts in reducing congestion on the road network during periods of peak demand.

Leaving aside the events detailed above there is no justification for accelerating the service. Western Ferries’ current service level provides a significant excess of spare capacity for both vehicles and passengers.

In light of the above, the suggested rewording of Condition 12 will firstly ensure that the Council’s concerns with regards to “simultaneous use” are recognised. Secondly, it will enable Western Ferries to operate with the flexibility to continue its service in light of expected and unforeseen events in due consideration of the needs of the local community, our neighbours’ concerns and our customers’ demands’.

______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

(i) 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 & Bute Structure Plan (adopted November 2002)

No relevant policies.

Argyll & Bute Local Plan (adopted August 2009)

LP ENV 1 Development impact on the general environment.

(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.

Consultee and third party responses Operator supporting statement. ______

(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: No ______

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

______

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

The proposed variation of condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET ensures that the issue of simultaneous use of both linkspans for embarking or disembarking passengers is not permitted. The rewording of this condition will however allow the application to utilise both linkspans for operational purposes. Importantly, the Area Roads Manager has raised no objection to this application. ______

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ______

(R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted

The Area Roads Manager has raised no objection to this application and there are no other material considerations, including third party representations, which would justify refusal of permission. ______(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan

N/A. ______

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______

Author of Report: John Irving Date: 17 September 2009

Reviewing Officer: David Eaglesham Date: 22 September 2009

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 09/01182/PP

1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved drawing titled ‘Location Plan’ received on 31 st July 2009 and approved drawing number 03103/202 rev L, titled ‘Proposed Site Plan, received on 31 st July 2009, unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

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

2. At no time shall vehicles and passengers embark or disembark from both linkspans at the same time.

Reason: In the interest of passenger safety and traffic management in and around the ferry terminal.

3. No additional external lighting shall be installed until full details of all external lighting to be used within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Area Roads Manager and the Public Protection Service. Such details shall include full details (including supporting structures) of the location, type, design, height, angle of direction and wattage of each light. Unless the prior written consent of the Planning Authority is obtained for variation, all lighting units within the application site shall be operated, positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the boundaries of the ferry terminal site, having regard to the Institute of Lighting Engineers Guidance.

Reason: In order to avoid the potential of light pollution infringing on surrounding land uses/properties.

NOTE TO APPLICANT

In order to comply with Section 27A(1) of the Town & 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 & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was complete.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/001182/DET

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

The site lies within Settlement Zone in the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Plan.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The original planning permission (ref: 05/00220/DET) was approved as being consistent with the Development Plan. This application relates to a traffic management issue and a condition attached to planning permission 05/00220/DET which prevents the simultaneous use of both linkspans.

Condition 12 of planning permission 05/00220/DET states the following:

“At no time shall the new linkspan and the existing linkspan (as indicated on the approved plans) be used simultaneously or on the same operational day for embarking/disembarking of vehicles and/or foot passengers. The existing linkspan shall not be used for the embarking/disembarking of paying vehicles and passengers except in the sole instance of any mechanical failure of the new linkspan’.

In respect of the recently refused planning application 09/00631/VARCON it should be noted that the report placed before the Bute & Cowal Area Committee on the 23 rd June 2009 incorrectly stated that this condition contained the caveat ‘unless the prior consent to vary the use of the two linkspans has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority”.

In light of the refused planning application to delete condition 12 of planning permission 05/0220/DET, Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd have now submitted this further application in an attempt to gain a variation of condition 12, so that it now should read ‘At no time shall vehicles and passengers embark or disembark from both linkspans at the same time’.

C. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.

Western Ferries have submitted a detailed statement in support of this application, summarised in section G of this report. The applicant maintains the proposed rewording of condition 12 will ensure it can operate with the flexibility to continue its service, using both linkspans, in light of expected and unforeseen events. They also maintain that the reworded condition 12 still prevents the simultaneous use of both linkspans for embarking or disembarking passengers in the interest of traffic management and safety at the ferry terminal.

While six individual letters of objection have been received along with two community council objections, which primarily raise road safety issues, the Area Roads Manager has raised no objection to this application.

D. Conclusion.

Over and above the clear operational benefits for the applicant, which can at times greatly reduce any traffic congestion from queuing vehicles, there is also a clear environmental improvement by reducing the amount of time car engines are left idling at the terminal, vessels waiting to dock at a single linkspan and transferring between both linkspans.