PLANNING APPLICATIONS BOARD: 9 NOVEMBER 2017

17/00306/PPD – APPLICATION FOR CREATION OF BUILDER’S YARD WITH ASSOCIATED OFFICES, WORKSHOP AND STORE BUILDINGS AT STEINISH, ISLE OF LEWIS

Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT Since the planning application has been the subject of more than six representations the planning application cannot be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to Committee for a decision.

COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented.

SUMMARY 2.1 This is a planning application by MJC Inspection and Design Ltd, on behalf of O’Mac Construction Ltd, 44-46 Inaclete Road, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis for planning permission to create a Builder’s Yard with associated workshop/store building and offices at Steinish, Isle of Lewis. 2.2 The site is located, on the south side of the Steinish village road, immediately adjacent to the Lewis and Harris Auction Mart. Two buildings, a parking area for 30 spaces and a boundary fence 2.4m high are proposed on the 0.585 ha site which forms part of an existing croft. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Scotland Order 1997, the premises would not fall within any particular Use Class and would therefore be termed sui generis meaning ‘of its own kind’. Any ‘Change of Use’ from the consented use would therefore require a new Planning Permission in its own right. 2.3 104 representations have been received regarding the development. Five are in support and 97 object to the development and 2 neither object, nor support. The issues raised principally relate to road capacity and safety; visual amenity; loss of quality agricultural land; precedent; local amenity; impact on auction mart; wildlife; water quality; fishing; loss of property value; and procedures. 2.4 The Comhairle is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the provisions of its Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The assessment against the Development Plan has determined that the proposal is in accordance with its provisions. An assessment of the material planning considerations has not identified any matter that carries such weight that it indicates that the Development Plan should not be accorded priority. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 Planning Agreement and the application of conditions.

RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that: a) the planning application be APPROVED subject to: i. the planning conditions in Appendix 1 to the Report and ii. the completion of an agreement under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to include widening of the carriage way as detailed in the Plan at Appendix 5 and post-construction road repairs identified as related to the construction phase of the development. b) the Chief Executive be given delegated authority , in consultation with the Director of Development to conclude the Section 75 Agreement referred to in a) above within four months of the decision of the committee. Contact Officer: Mairi Mackinnon Tel: 01851 822 690 Email: [email protected] Appendix: 1. Schedule of Proposed Conditions 2 Aerial map, location map 3. Map of site location relative to Croft No 13 4. Application site plan, elevation plans 5. Plan – extent of Simon’s Road requiring widening Background Papers: None DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1. This is a planning application by MJC Inspection and Design Ltd, on behalf of O’Mac Construction Ltd, 44-46 Inaclete Road, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis for planning permission to create a builder’s yard with associated workshop store buildings and offices at Steinish, Isle of Lewis. 4.2. The site is located in the village of Steinish, on the south side of the village road and immediately adjacent to the Lewis and Harris Auction Mart. The nearest houses to the development on the opposite side of the village road are 148 metres to the north west of the site and 163 metres to the north east of the site. More recently Planning Permission in Principle has been granted to erect a house on the same side of the road as the proposed development, 133 metres to the north east of the site. 4.3. The entire site measures 78 metres by 75 metres. The store/workshop building is to be located in the centre of the site and measures 39.7 metres by 17.6 metres in plan and is 7.3 metres in height. The walls and roof of the building would be sheeted in dark grey profile sheeting. 4.4. The proposed office building, sited on the eastern boundary, to the front section of the site, measures 15.1 metres by 10.1 metres in plan and is 3.9 metres in height. The proposed materials for the office building would be dark grey profiled metal roof sheeting, vertical board cedar cladding to the walls and grey uPVC windows and doors. The rain water goods would be black uPVC. 4.5. 30 parking spaces are proposed on the site. A 2.4 metre high palisade fence would be erected to the perimeter of the site and planting is also proposed, although the species are yet to be agreed. 4.6. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Scotland Order 1997, a Builder’s Yard would not fall within any particular Use Class and would therefore be termed sui generis meaning ‘of its own kind’. Any ‘Change of Use’ from the consented use would therefore require a new Planning Permission in its own right. A builder’s yard is characterised by a higher level of activity at the start and end of each working day, with a small number of employees present during the day carrying out service and support functions at the yard, workshop and offices, and the majority of employees based away from the site on construction activities elsewhere.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEXT 4.7. Steinish, while relatively close to the main settlement of Stornoway, is classed as a ‘Rural Settlement’, in terms of Policy 1: Development Strategy of the adopted Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2012. It is also classed as ‘Rural settlement’ by Policy DS1: Development Strategy in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2) – Proposed Plan 2017. 4.8. In terms of the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment, Steinish is identified as Crofting One landscape type. The Landscape Character Assessment records the key characteristics of the Crofting One landscape type as ‘long sweeping gentle slopes often domed, ending in long curving beaches to the seaward and merging evenly into boggy moorland elsewhere… The scale of this landscape is large with open views being commonplace. A rectangular field pattern overlies the gently rolling landscape. The smaller scale of this field pattern, divided by post and wire fences is not sufficiently strong to override the underlying large scale character…. Low skylines, 'toothed' with croft houses and other buildings are characteristic. The repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships is a strong, unifying feature to this landscape…. In linear settlements, views to the sea or open moorland behind give a perception of rural remoteness’. 4.9. In addition to landscape characteristics existing development patterns, scale and design of buildings, nature of uses and activities peculiar to the area help establish the character of an area. 4.10. The public road access into Steinish runs in a north easterly direction from Mossend where it initially passes the Blar Buidhe Nursing home and the residential development of Redburn. The public road has a formal pavement on one side to just beyond the entrance to Redburn. The road extends for approximately one mile through Stewartfield and the first crofts in Steinish, before splitting at a T-junction and running at right angles to Simon’s Road from where it servers the more populated end of the village. 4.11. The majority of crofts in Steinish are located at the far end of the village road and in terms of size and layout are more typical of the Crofting One character type in that they are long narrow strips arranged in a linear pattern and generally run on a SW to NE axis. Most of the existing buildings in the village are located on these crofts and are typically residential, interspersed domestic outbuildings and agricultural buildings. 4.12. The application site sits within the rural settlement of Steinish forms part of a larger croft which straddles Simon’s Road and lies immediately adjacent to the Lewis and Harris auction mart site. The croft of which it forms part is in terms of size much larger than is typical of Crofting One landscape types. 4.13. The croft, of which the application site forms part, is large extending to 19 ha (48 acres) and appears to be of mixed character, with the land on the north west side of Simon’s Road being unimproved grassland used for grazing while the land on the south east side of the road slopes gently towards the shore and is of arable quality and more suited to cropping. 4.14. The application site extends to 0.585 ha (1.4 acres) and is located on the north west side of the road on part of the unimproved grassland, used for grazing. 4.15. The adjacent auction mart site comprises a building which is agricultural in character with adjacent metaled yard areas and an extensive area of stock pens of galvanized steel. The proposal would have a closer physical and visual relationship with the auction mart site than it would with the housing on the linear crofts at the end of the Steinish Road 4.16. The village is characterised by activities typical of rural crofting settlements around the town of Stornoway with some crofts being cropped, some stocked (mainly sheep), some unused and others used for grazing horses. Horses are fed in some cases from the roadside. Consistent with other crofting townships there is a level of recreational walking, jogging, and cycling involving residents and people from the surrounding area that use the area for leisure.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES 5.1 The planning application by MJC Inspection and Design Ltd, on behalf of O’Mac Construction Ltd, 44-46 Inaclete Road, Stornoway, was registered on 5 July 2017. 5.2 The planning application was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette in the publication dated 13 July 2017, as required by regulations. The application was re-advertised in the Stornoway Gazette on 21 September 2017 (amended plans) and the neighbouring properties re-notified on 15 September 2017. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2017 6.1 The proposal is sui generis and proposed for a single use/operator and has not been subject to Environmental Impact Assessment given its location, scale and non-complex character.

PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE 7.1 There is no planning history relating to the site.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultations by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.

COMHAIRLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE 8.2 ‘In terms of the operation of the yard I would recommend that the normal operating hours be between 7am and 7pm to Monday to –Saturday to protect the amenity at any noise sensitive premises.

CONSTRUCTION Noise 8.3 There is a potential for noise disturbance from the demolition/construction of this development, and from activities associated with it. The following conditions are recommended. Condition 1 Hours of operation should be restricted to 08.00 – 19.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays and no working on Sundays. Reason To protect the amenity at noise sensitive premises. Condition 2 Should any complaints be received in respect of noise levels, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints and if requested by the Planning Authority to establish noise levels at any affected property, shall undertake noise monitoring which shall be carried out by a suitably qualified noise expert or consultant previously agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and which shall be carried out in accordance with BS7445:2003, BS4142:2014 and PAN 1:2011. Reason To quantify the loss of amenity at noise sensitive premises resulting from the operation of the development. Condition 3 Should any noise monitoring undertaken in accordance with condition 2 above demonstrate that the noise thresholds are being exceeded, the developer shall submit a scheme of mitigating measures to the Planning Authority for written agreement within one month of the breach being identified. The agreed mitigating measures shall be implemented within one month of the written agreement or within any alternative timescale agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises. Dust 8.4 There is a potential for dust from the construction of this development to cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties. The following condition is recommended. Condition 1 A method statement should be submitted to the Planning Authority outlining what dust mitigation measures will be put in place for the duration of the construction phase. Should any complaints be received in respect of dust, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints to establish dust levels at any affected property. Reason To protect the amenity at dust sensitive premises.’

COMHAIRLE TECHNICAL SERVICES - ROADS 17.10.17 (Revised site layout) 8.5 ‘The access should be constructed in accordance with Drawing 17/00306 rev. The revised site plan shows a relocated office building, associated parking and allows an improved visibility splay. The access radii and width are as conditioned. However, taking in to account the single track village road, a splay should be incorporated in to the access bellmouth. This will allow an articulated lorry to exit the site. The details of this are shown in Drawing 17/00306rev. Although the site boundary is shown to include the existing road verge and roadside drain this will remain under the control of the roads authority. The fence line shown on the site plan must be to the rear of this roadside drain, be a minimum of 2.5m from the road edge and not restrict the visibility splay. The roadside drain should remain open either side of the access. Also a grated drain would be the preferred option to prevent surface water entering the Steinish village road. The proposed development, with approximately 20 vehicles associated with the site, could account for an additional 80 traffic movements per day. At present the road caters for 500-600 vehicle movements per day according to traffic surveys. The Steinish road is a single track road of varying widths, a narrow lined footway, and passing places. Concerns have been raised from residents and the local Councillors with regards to road safety before this proposal was submitted. The neighbouring Auction Mart is open 6 days a year and creates its own issues with high volumes of traffic and limited parking although the carriageway remains clear. The passing places give a road width of 5.5m allowing vehicles to pass. On Simons Road, adjacent to Blar Buidhe, the road is slightly under 5m which is neither single or double track. With the additional commercial traffic, from the development, there could be issues with larger and wider vehicles trying to pass at this section. It is recommended that the developer, in compliance with the Comhairle’s Roads Construction Consent process, widens the road to 5.5m at this section of road (approx.100m) to allow 2 way traffic. The depth of this widening will range from approx. 500-900mm (see attached plan). Any damage to the road, as a result of the development, should be repaired at the developer’s expense. A joint pre-construction survey must be arranged by the Developer.’ 25.08.17 (Initial proposal) 8.6 ‘The proposed development, with approximately 20 vehicles associated with the site, could account for an additional 80 traffic movements per day. At present the road caters for 500-600 vehicle movements per day according to traffic surveys. The Steinish road is a single track road of varying widths, a narrow lined footway, and passing places. Concerns have been raised from residents and the local Councillors with regards to road safety before this proposal was submitted. The neighbouring Auction Mart is open 6 days a year and creates its own issues with high volumes of traffic and limited parking although the carriageway remains clear. The passing places give a road width of 5.5m allowing vehicles to pass. On Simons Road, adjacent to Blar Buidhe, the road is slightly under 5m which is neither single or double track. With the additional commercial traffic, from the development, there could be issues with larger and wider vehicles trying to pass at this section. It is recommended that the developer, in compliance with the Comhairle’s Roads Construction Consent process, widens the road to 5.5m at this section of road (approx.100m) to allow 2 way traffic. The depth of this widening will range from approx. 500-900mm (see attached plan). The access should be constructed in accordance with Drawing 17/00306. The site plan shows adequate parking and turning within the site. The bellmouth of the access must allow space for large vehicles to manoeuvre. The office building is shown 3m from the edge of the village road, the standard condition is that buildings should be a min 7m from the main road edge unless there are site constraints. The proposed fencing/ planting/parking must not restrict visibility from the junction. Any damage to the road, as a result of the development, should be repaired at the developer’s expense. A joint pre-construction survey must be arranged by the Developer.’

COMHAIRLE BUILDING STANDARDS 26.10.17 (Revised layout) 8.7 ‘I can confirm that the revised position of the office building now satisfies the requirements of Standard 2.6 as identified in previous comments. 15.08.17 (Initial proposal) 8.8 ‘The proximity of the timber clad office building to the adjacent boundary is not in accordance with Standard 2.6. A full technical assessment will be carried out at building warrant stage. To satisfy the requirements of Standard 2.6 (clause 2.6.4) the office building would need to be located approximately 4m from the adjacent north east boundary.’

SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION SERVICE (SEPA) 01.08.17 8.9 ‘After looking on GIS there appears to be no concerns from our point of view. Site is beside auction mart, rough grassland (maybe a bit of peat present), close to public sewers, and no impacts on water environment apparent. Coastal flood risk layer is approx. 150m north west. Standard advice has been provided. However if you drew our attention to any specific issues in relation to our interests we would be happy to provide site specific advice if that would be helpful. 21.07.17 8.10 Below is a link to our standing advice for new developments: SEPA standing advice for planning authorities and developers on development management consultations.’ Relevant sections of SEPA’s standing advice include: Waste water drainage Drainage is a material planning consideration and should be considered before determination of all planning applications in line with Scottish Planning Policy and guidance. All developments in or adjacent to public sewered areas should connect to the public sewer. Where there are public sewer capacity or connection problems, we still expect solutions to be arrived at that allow connection to the public sewer. Surface water drainage The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR) includes a requirement that surface water discharge must not result in pollution of the water environment. It also makes Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) a requirement for new development…… SUDS help to protect water quality and reduce potential for flood risk. They are appropriate in both urban and rural situations. Cost effective SUDS solutions can be found for almost every situation, and can be a cheaper alternative to traditional drainage measures…. For all developments, run-off from areas subject to particularly high pollution risk (eg yard areas, service bays, fuelling areas, pressure washing areas, oil or chemical storage, handling and delivery areas) should be minimised and directed to the foul sewer. Where run-off from high risk areas cannot be directed to the foul sewer we can, on request, provide further site specific advice on what would be the best environmental solution……Developers are directed to the SUDS Manual (C753) and the importance of preventing runoff from the site for the majority of small rainfall events (interception) is promoted. Applicants should be using the Simple Index Approach (SIA) Tool to determine if the types of SUDS proposed are adequate. The SUDS treatment train should be followed which uses a logical sequence of SUDS facilities in series allowing run-off to pass through several different SUDS before reaching the receiving waterbody…. Space for waste management provision with site layout In accordance with Scottish Planning Policy, space for collection, segregation, storage and possibly treatment of waste (eg individual and/or communal bin stores, composting facilities, waste treatment facilities etc) should be allocated in the planning application site layout. Please consult with your internal waste management colleagues to determine what space requirements are required within the application site layout. Some local authorities have an information sheet which details space requirements.

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE 8.11 ‘I refer to your request for advice on possible natural heritage impacts arising from the planning application 17/00306, for a builders yard in a field at Steinish. I have checked our corncrake survey data for 1993 to 2016. There have been no records of corncrake calling from this field in any of these years. The closest record is a calling male in the field across the road towards the shore, which is 130m away at the nearest point. This record is from 2014. We know of no other significant natural heritage interests at this particular location’.

CROFTING COMMISSION 8.12 LEGAL BACKGROUND ‘The Crofting Commission has submitted this response as a statutory consultee in respect of planning applications on croft land. The response is based on the Crofting Commissions Policy plan (Nov 2015), which was produced as a legal requirement, after consultation with local authorities, HIE and others, and has been accepted by the Minister and laid before parliament. It should also be noted that the Land Court may have regard to the plan when considering an appeal against any decision of the Commission.

RESEARCH CONDUCTED The comments made below should be qualified by the statement that this report has been prepared as a desk-based exercise, using the Crofting Commission’s Register of Crofts, the Registers of Scotland’s Crofting Register, aerial and landscape photos and the MacAulay Institute land classification to assess the land capability for agriculture and to then determine the potential impact on the croft and the land itself.

CROFT The land where the proposed development is located is confirmed as being currently being under crofting tenure. Boundaries of the croft can be viewed on the Registers of Scotland’s crofting register using the Ref: C3761. Using the MacAulay Land classification criteria it is noted that the area is described as being category 4.1 which is described as land capable of producing a narrow range of crops based primarily on grassland. Yields of grass are potentially high but there are difficulties in production due to conservation and utilisation due to factors such as climate, wetness and shallow or stony ground. From aerial photography it appears the specific field may not be quite within the range described above having possibly reverted, however it would still have the potential as good grassland. This would be demonstrated through the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) system where land is assessed into different payment types depending on its quality. We would assess this land being placed in the Region 1 category receiving the highest payment rate and being described as better quality agricultural land that has been used for arable cropping, temporary grass and permanent grass.

CROFTING COMMISSION RESPONSE The Crofting Commission wish to raise the following concerns to the proposed development based on both its own Policy Plan and also the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (Adopted). Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (Adopted) - 9th Sept 2012. It is note that the development is located in an area classified as a rural settlement. Policy 1 (Development Strategy) states that development proposals within rural settlements will be assessed against: d) New developments do not erode the character which forms the distinctiveness of the rural settlement. The Crofting Commission are of the opinion that the township of Steinish is primarily a small crofting township of 19 croft tenancies and therefore have concerns that the development proposed is more industrial in nature, and if approved would have a negative impact on the distinctiveness of the crofting township. It is noted that the proposed development is located beside the Stornoway Livestock Auction Mart, which is a hugely important asset for all crofters in Lewis and Harris for the buying and selling of their livestock. Should the application be approved it would be vital that all the privileges currently held such as access and existing services be secured. It is noted that the road which serves the Auction Mart and the township is currently a single track road with limited access and parking. Our understanding is that there is already difficult traffic congestion on sales days. Should the development proceed, then there is a concern that the road would require upgrading, which could then lead to further development opportunities such as the current proposal which would result in a definite erosion of the crofting township character. e) The development of better quality inbye croft land does not threaten the continuation of crofting. The Crofting Commission would assess that this land is better quality in bye croft land as demonstrated earlier in this document. It is considered that there would be a demand for such a croft should it ever become available and deliver many of the benefits that the crofting system delivers such as: Population retention through occupation of crofts. Various environmental benefits through proper use Increased production of livestock and food Affordable housing solutions through incoming crofters obtaining Croft House Grant scheme assistance. Crofting Commission’s Policy Plan 116. Planning The Crofting Commission as a statutory consultee will respond to individual planning applications where it has specific concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the croft. As stated in the Policy Plan any proposed development should use the least possible amount of productive croft land. It is stated that the proposed development being declared as 0.585 ha is considered to be a significantly large area of good quality inbye land which should not be removed from crofting tenure.’

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 8.13 ‘This application relates to a site outside of Ministry of Defence safeguarding areas. I can therefore confirm that the Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.’

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIRPORTS LIMITED 8.14 ‘With reference to the above proposed development, it is confirmed that our calculations show that, at the given position and height, this development would not infringe the safeguarding surfaces for Stornoway Airport. Therefore, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited would have no objections to the proposal.’

REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 Representations against the proposal have been received from 97 parties. 5 representations in support of the proposal have been received. 9.2 The full terms of the Representations can be read on the file at the Development Department. Two folders containing copies of the full text of the representations have also been placed in the Members’ Lounge. The assessment of issues raised is dealt with under Material Considerations at Section 13. However, they can be summarised as follows:  Road capacity and safety.  Rural residential/crofting character.  Visual amenity/landscape character/design.  Loss of agricultural land.  Precedent.  Alternative sites/better use.  Public sewage system.  EIA.  Quality of life/amenity of residents.  Impact on Auction Mart.  Impact on wildlife.  Impact on water quality/wild salmonids/fishing.  Flight path.  Loss of property value in village.  Loss of view.  Comment on Applicant.  Procedural matters.

VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT 10.1 21 August 2017 - We are writing in response to comments raised within the objection correspondence in relation to the proposed development of a construction yard, workshop and office at Steinish, Isle of Lewis. 10.2 Firstly, we would like to note our frustration after reading through the comments. It is apparent that there has been collusion and collaboration amongst the objectors, the same comments are being made in the same order and multiple letters have been written by single households. Despite this we would like to address the items to the best of our ability. 10.3 The Road - Clearly the single most commonly quoted objection is concern over the adequacy of the road to cope with additional vehicles. We understand that the residents have serious concerns regarding the speed of vehicles on this road amongst other things. These concerns have been expressed by residents for many years and have included requests for assistance from the police to deal with speeding drivers. CNES are in the process of assess the improvement of the road into Steinish. Concerns over the road have been ongoing for at least eight years and are not caused by or consequence of the proposed development. The residents of Steinish have been fighting for years to have the road improved. 10.4 Road Safety – All our vehicles are already fitted with trackers, this allows us to monitor not only the location of our vehicles and their occupants but also the speed of the vehicle. It is currently our company policy to discipline drivers who exceed the speed limit in a company vehicle. The proposed development would be positioned half way along the road into the village, at no point would any of our vehicles have the requirement to drive further than the yard gate. 10.5 Increased Traffic – Inevitably a development such as the one proposed would increase the traffic along the road between the planned yard and the junction to the main road. The greatest concentration of movement would be around 8am and then again at 4:30pm Monday to Friday. There would be minimal to no movement in evenings and weekends. Ample carparking space would be provided within the perimeter of the yard – there would be no need for on-road parking for any operative or visitor. 10.6 Mention has been made to heavy plant and ‘wide loads’ - large deliveries are made directly to site, out-with the construction of the yard there would be no requirements for wide loads or articulated lorries along the road. 10.7 One objection reads as follows: “I have serious concerns in inviting into the village even more transient workers with little stake-holding in the village or village life. They are the ones that will ‘cut corners’ to get back to the yard quicker at the end of the day and make a fatal mistake”. 10.8 O’Mac is proud to have a workforce entirely made up of local tradesmen, the majority of which have been born and brought up in villages the length and breadth of Lewis and have years of experience in driving along the most precarious roads this island has to offer, with due diligence and safety. 10.9 Noise – Minimal to none construction activities happen within the workshop currently and this would not change should we have the opportunity to relocate. There is no production within the workshop and during an average day all operatives are out on site. The main building will be used predominantly for storage of materials, tools and plant. Noise is unlikely to affect neighbours 200m away and the main body of the village even further away. During construction of the project we would be happy to carry out sound test and would fully co-operate with Environmental Health to monitor Noise emissions from the site. 10.10 Dust – Again with no production taking place within the yard during the normal course of business there should be no issue with dust. During the construction phase, should the weather be dry and breezy, water would be sprinkled on the area to minimize potential dust levels. Should any complaints be received in respect of dust, we would fully investigate these complaints to establish dust levels at any affected property. The completed yard would be almost completely concrete and tar therefore there should no dust emissions. 10.11 Waste – Much mention has been made to waste levels and ‘flying debris’. As a company, we work to and adhere to our Environment and Waste Management policies. Our current yard on Inaclete Road is kept immaculately tidy and rubbish is disposed of in a closed skip, however due to space restrictions the skip needs to be on the road rather than within the confines of the yard. This results in members of the public using the skip in evenings/nighttime and cannot be effectively controlled. The skip is emptied at least once a week. 10.12 Objectors have also made reference to our second yard in Moorpark. This is a rented facility and is unmanned and in a shared area which we are unable to lock resulting in it being prone to fly tippers and salvagers alike and is impossible to police. 10.13 A bespoke yard with ample storage and workshop would allow for more skips enabling the segregation and increased recycling of waste products. 10.14 Waste is a considerable overhead for any business and all measures available to minimize waste and decrease costs are embraced by our company. 10.15 Commercial/Residential Area – The area that we are interested is right next to an existing commercial development namely the Lewis and Harris Auction Mart and some 200m away from the nearest residential dwellings. 10.16 The reason that this particular plot was identified as a potential home for our company followed months of negotiation with various bodies – CNES, Stornoway Trust and private individuals – over various sites, with no other way forward Steinish emerged as our best option. 10.17 Crofting Village – Our research has shown that out of 40 dwellings in the area only 3 are active crofts. 10.18 Agricultural Site - The ground is unsuitable for grazing or cutting, therefore of no agricultural value to its current owner. 10.19 Wildlife – Like most people we would not like to see or be the cause of the desecration of the natural habitat of a protected species. 10.20 Scottish Natural Heritage have confirmed in writing that there is no wildlife inhabiting the site. It is worth bearing in mind that our proposal includes the planting of trees and bushes which will provide a habitat for all sorts of birds and small wildlife. 10.21 Village Ambiance – We appreciate wholeheartedly people’s aversion to change. Villages, however, like any other populated area evolve and grow. The village of Steinish has itself progressed considerably over the last 30 years with many new homes being built. Most villages on Lewis have some element of commercial property, these businesses work in harmony with the population of the village and are respected as an important part of the islands economy. 10.22 The project includes planting and fencing which will effectively screen the yard from the road and the village. The main building has been strategically placed to screen externally stored materials from view from the road. 10.23 We have provided a development plan that covered the topics raised and more and clarified any relevant points. 10.24 We urge that existing issues raised by residents but out-with our proposal are not taken into account when considering our application. 29/8/ 17 - An assessment of why none of the listed sites are suitable 10.25 We approached the Stornoway Trust who own the Creed Enterprise Park as we identified a suitable empty plot at the site, after discussions it was brought to our attention that HIE have a long term lease on the site which we had identified. The Trust are trying to terminate the lease and have been trying to do so for some time but they could not put timescales on the release which was a bit of a concern for us as we have a need to relocate sooner rather than later. We were then informed by the Trust that they would be unwilling to sell any of the plots at the Creed and would only give them out on long term lease. We currently own the buildings we are in at Inaclete Road and it would not make any financial sense to sell something we own to go and spend hundreds of thousands putting up buildings on land that would never be ours. We then suggested extending the Creed Park towards Arnish and that we would take a greenfield site and fill it, secure it and service it, but only if they would sell it to us and again they were only willing to lease. 10.26 Although I didn't directly approach HIE regarding the Arnish site, I spoke to people with connections to Arnish and they are trying to keep the yard as it is to attract a mainland fabrication/renewable company to come in and take over the whole place giving some away to a building contractor doesn't fit into their long term plan. Arnish is set up as a fabrication yard and would not have been particularly suitable for us although at that point we would have considered anything. Once again we were informed even if we did get into Arnish it would be on lease of land only. 10.27 Why there is a specific economic need at this particular site? This particular site was identified by myself after taking a number of factors into account, we identified 3 sites within the Stornoway area, Mossend, Parkend and Steinish, Mossend, the seller refused to sell as it’s on farming lease for the next 7 years, Parkend, the land is owned by the common grazing and they are unwilling to part with it. That left Steinish, it ticked all the boxes as did the other sites next to an existing commercial development, not close to housing, easy access and particularly in the case of Parkend and Steinish the ground is unsuitable for agricultural use, services (Hyrdo, water and BT) nearby and close to Stornoway. 14/9/2017 - See below reply from HIE regarding the availability of commercial plots at Arnish 10.28 ‘Apologies for the delay in this response. To ensure the accuracy of this response, I took your enquiry to Arnish Project Board, which met this afternoon. I am unable to offer any land at Arnish. It may be the case however that Stornoway Trust could entertain an enquiry in respect of their land at Creed Enterprise Park. 25/9/17 FYI – Response from Stornoway Trust 10.29 ‘The Trust I believe is now at an advanced stage in taking over HIE’s interest in the large enclosure known as Plots One and Two. As I previously explained, once that process has been completed, the intention is that all the available land at Creed Park will be advertised for lease with interested parties given a long term tenure option. 10.30 Given the degree of interest that has already been expressed we face the likelihood of not being in a position to accommodate the level of demand expected for the 1.5Ha available. 10.31 I am not therefore in a position to offer any party any assurances of success at this stage but should demand exceed the land available the Trust is minded to further explore ways in which suitable sites can be developed to help foster business growth within the Trust’s area.’

Croft 13 Steinish 10.32 6/10/17 - Please see attached plan of croft relative to 13 Steinish, Isle of Lewis.

ASSESSMENT OF EIA 11.1 The application is not an EIA application.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material planning considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.

12.2 Policy 1 – Development Strategy

Development proposals within Rural Settlement will be assessed against all of the following: a) a siting and design appropriate to the rural character, distinctiveness and settlement pattern of the local area in line with Siting & Design Policy 4 and Landscape Policy 5; b) a lower level of density that accords with those set out with those set out in Housing Policy 13 and the landscape character of the individual settlement c) demonstration of how development at the edge of the settlement physically and visually integrates with the existing settlement pattern and characteristics, and consolidates the existing edge; d) new development does not erode the character which forms the distinctiveness of the rural settlement; e) the development of better quality inbye croft land does not threaten the continuation of crofting.

12.3 The application site is located just outside the boundary of the Main Settlement of Stornoway, as defined on the Strategy Map of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, and is within the Rural Settlement of Steinish. The development is therefore assessed against the specific parts of the policy that relate to Rural Settlements. 12.4 Part a) of the Policy requires the development to be sited and designed to be in line with Policies 4 and 5. This assessment is provided below at Policy 4 and Policy 5. 12.5 Part b) of the Policy relates to housing and is not relevant to this application. 12.6 Part c) The application site is close to the south eastern edge of the township, and is adjacent to the existing Auction Mart. It is located between the existing building and the main part of Steinish village to the north east. The Auction Mart is approximately 23m by 31m. The proposed development includes two buildings, one to be used as a store and workshop and will be 39.7m by 17.6m by 7.3m high. The second building will accommodate offices, a reception area and meeting facilities and will be 10.1m by 15.1m by 3.9m high. The scale and design of the proposed workshop building is similar to the existing auction mart building, while the offices are low rise and similar in size to a detached bungalow. The proposal would not go beyond the edge of the settlement and in terms of scale, appearance and design would be compatible with the neighbouring building. The larger building would be in line with the Auction Mart but the proposed office block building is closer to the road than the existing Auction Mart building. It is considered that the proposed development would integrate with the existing settlement pattern and characteristics. The Auction Mart and the proposed building would sit together as a small group remote from each end of the village, and would consolidate as a group rather than as the settlement edge. Planting is proposed along the perimeter of the development and this would minimize the visual impact of the buildings and security fencing. 12.7 Part d) Most of the development in Steinish is concentrated along the township road which runs from north west to south east. Here the crofts are very narrow with the houses being built close to the road; back land development to the rear of this line has occurred in many crofts. However, the pattern of development along the township road running from south west to north east (Simon’s Road) is less dense with more sporadic development of individual houses. The proposed development is located close to the Auction Mart, a building of similar scale and form. Although the introduction of a new development would result in some change within the township, the change has not been assessed to be so significant to erode the ‘character and distinctiveness of the area‘. 12.8 Part e) The total area of the relatively large croft is 19.0ha while the application site extends to 0.585 ha (78 by 75 metres). This represents 3.09% of this relatively large croft. There is no apparent evidence of recent cultivation, with it being used for rough grazing. In the consultation response the Crofting Commission considered that the site is considered to be ‘better quality’ land. The owner states that ‘the land relating to the proposed development is of the poorest quality agricultural land which is peat and is classed as category 3 by SERAD (this is the least productive land). The fields across the road are Category 1, the highest quality for agricultural purposes and that is reflected in the categorisation and subsidy payments for these different areas of land by SERAD.’ While the quality of land may be an issue on which the Crofting Commission and Land owner do not agree, in assessing the proposals in terms of Planning this would be against part e) i.e.the planning policy test to be satisfied is whether the loss of this 0.585 ha site would ‘threaten the continuation of crofting’. 12.9 The size of this croft is significantly larger than most crofts in Steinish, and Lewis generally and the application site constitutes only 3.09% of the total area of the croft. If this site is developed the remaining croft would have an area 18.375 ha. It is therefore proposed that the development of this land would not compromise the potential viability of this individual croft and would not ‘threaten the continuation of crofting’ in the village of Steinish or indeed the wider area. 12.10 From the assessment above it is concluded that the development, physically and visually, integrates into the settlement, does not erode the character of the settlement and does not threaten the continuation of crofting. The proposed development is therefore considered to be consistent with parts c) d) and e) of Policy 1.

12.11 Policy 4 – Siting and Design Development proposals must demonstrate a satisfactory quality of siting, scale and design that respects and reflects the characteristics of the surroundings. Development proposals for buildings will be permitted where they satisfy all of the following: a) siting relates to the settlement pattern, landform, surrounding buildings and open spaces, and accords with Policy 1 Development Strategy and Policy 5 Landscape; b) design, scale, form and mass integrate with the streetscape, townscape and/or landform, avoiding dominating the sky line, and relate to design elements that make a positive contribution to the character of the surrounding area; the mass of larger buildings should be managed by breaking up the design elements; c) materials, colour, proportions and detailing complement the streetscape, townscape and/or landscape; d) car parking arrangements accord with the Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout Supplementary Guidance which forms part of the Development Plan; e) plot layout accommodates: i. the development footprint placed and orientated to respect the characteristics of the local area; ii. service requirements, safe road access, parking provision integrated to minimise adverse impacts on the environment and public road; iii. adequate amenity space consistent with the type and character of the development; iv. landscaping, and boundary treatments in positions, form and scale that integrate the development into its setting. Developments which result in an over-development of a plot of site by virtue of density, scale or height will be resisted; f) levels, excavation and under-building – buildings on sloping sites should be set at level which will compensate excavation depth with unacceptable levels of visible under-build. Surplus materials from excavations should be landscaped to reflect the natural landform. Pre and post development levels and landscaping measures should be detailed on submitted plans; g) the amenity of neighbouring properties is considered in the siting and design of new development to ensure reasonable levels of amenity are retained in respect of noise, disturbance or lighting, overlooking and overshadowing. Development will not be supported where it will result in a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

12.12 a) In this part of Steinish the land is low lying and relatively flat with some individual houses sporadically located along the township road and the large Auction Mart, located on the adjacent plot, to the south west of the application site. The larger of the two buildings proposed within the site would have a similar orientation to the mart building. The siting is assessed to be acceptable as it relates to the existing large building, is consistent with the settlement pattern and, as the land is relatively flat, the large footprint can be accommodated with minimal effect on the surrounding land form. The development has been assessed against Policy 1 above and against Policy 5 below and subject to compliance with these, this part of the policy could be satisfied. b) The design of the buildings is simple. Both buildings are rectangular and have a shallow pitched roof. The larger building is 39.7 by 17.6 metres by 7m high. The smaller office building is15.1 by 10.1 metres and 3.9 metres high. The form and mass of the larger building is similar to a large agricultural building and would not be significantly different to the form and mass of the adjacent Auction Mart. Overall, it is considered that the development would have a neutral effect on the streetscape and landscape. c) The proposed materials for the larger store building include dark grey profiled metal sheeting for the walls and roof. Materials for the office/meeting room would be vertical board cedar cladding to the walls, grey profiled metal sheeting to the roof and grey uPVC windows and doors. These materials and colours are assessed to have a neutral effect on the landscape. d) The car park provision accords with the Standards for Car Parking and Roads layout Supplementary Guidance. This is discussed further in response to Supplementary Guidance below. Planning conditions can be used to ensure that car-parking provision is provided to the required number and standard. e) The buildings are orientated to respect the character of the immediate area and it is possible to provide a safe access from the application site onto the Steinish road. The provision of amenity space within a commercial use is not essential, but there is sufficient area to accommodate landscaping that would soften the impact and help integrate the development into the landscape. Satisfactory landscaping and boundary treatment can be facilitated by planning conditions. f) The site is relatively flat but the footprint of the buildings are such that small changes in levels over the area could be visually significant. This is part of the development that could be controlled by way of planning conditions. g) The neighbouring plot is occupied by the Auction Mart, the nearest existing house is approximately 170m away. The proposed building is therefore assessed to be far enough away from any building so as not to cause overlooking or overshadowing. Activities associated with the proposed use of the application site have the potential to cause some degree of noise and disturbance. However, the use of appropriate planning conditions has the capacity to protect the amenity of the area controlling hours of working, noise levels, screen fencing, measures to prevent any dust etc. 12.13 Sections h) to j) are not relevant to this development.

12.14 From the assessment above it is concluded that the siting, design, scale, car parking provision and plot layout of the proposed development are considered to be consistent with the terms of Policy 4. The reference to Policy 4 within Policy 1a) is also satisfied.

12.15 Policy 5 - Landscape

Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI-LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this plan for a summary of this guidance.

12.16 In terms of the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment, Steinish is identified as a Crofting One landscape type. 12.17 ‘The Crofting One landscape type is ‘characterised by long sweeping gentle slopes often domed, ending in long curving beaches to the seaward and merging evenly into boggy moorland elsewhere. Occasional small, steep sided river valleys dissect the even outlines. Low skylines, 'toothed' with croft houses and other buildings are characteristic’. 12.18 The scale of this landscape is large with open views being commonplace. Only occasionally does landform variation combine to give a more intimate scale. The exposed nature of this landscape means that it is often more open to the elements of the weather. 12.19 A rectangular field pattern overlies the gently rolling landscape. The smaller scale of this field pattern, divided by post and wire fences is not sufficiently strong to override the underlying large scale character. 12.20 Within the croft inbye there is often a graduation of intensity of land-use, from potentially cropable land to solely grazing ground. This and differing grazing regimes between croft strips produce a range of colours and textures. 12.21 The repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships is a strong, unifying feature to this landscape. In linear settlements, views to the sea or open moorland behind give a perception of rural remoteness. 12.22 In grid-type settlements where buildings can be viewed beyond others, the perception is of more expansive and often widespread habitation. More recent croft houses are often sited behind the original house. Modern croft houses tend to be of larger size with more complex forms and multiple aspects. This results in a more complex pattern of settlement in some townships. 12.23 The WI-LCA suggests that distant visibility as well as close visibility, the form of the building, the distinct linear pattern of crofts should be considered. The proposed development does respect the existing linear form of the landscape character and the shape and form of the proposed buildings are not dissimilar to larger agricultural buildings and the adjacent Auction Mart. When viewed from a distance set against the existing Mart building the proposed building and the extent of the site and its boundary treatments are not considered to be incongruous and therefore the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. Overall it is concluded that the development would comply with Policy 5. The reference to Policy 5 within Policy 1a) and Policy 4a) is also satisfied.

12.24 Policy 6 – Water and Waste water New developments will be required to adopt the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) with the exception of those discharging directly to coastal waters and single house developments (where surface water can be treated by other means). Sewerage - New buildings in areas with public sewerage systems and developments of 25 houses or more will be required to connect to the public sewer unless the developer can demonstrate that there are specific technical reasons as to why the development cannot reasonably be connected to a public sewer. In such cases the development will only be permitted if the developer can demonstrate a sustainable, alternative method that will not significantly adversely impact on the environment or neighbour amenity. Private waste water systems should discharge to land. Where this is not possible, the developer must submit evidence that discharge to the water environment is acceptable to SEPA. Discharge from waste water systems direct to waters designated under EC Shellfish Directives will not be permitted. Water: - New developments in areas with public water supplies will be required to connect to the public water supply. In situations where there is no, or an inadequate, public water supply the details including the sufficiency and wholesomeness of the private water supply will require to be demonstrated.

12.25 Surface water drainage from yard and buildings comprising part of the development will require to be treated and drained by a full SuDS system to meet the requirements of Buildings Standards and SEPA Guidance. A condition is imposed requiring submission of these details. 12.26 The development will connect to the public water supply. The area is served by a sewerage system and the developer will be required by condition to connect to the public sewer. Neither Scottish Water nor SEPA has made the Comhairle Planning Service aware of any capacity restrictions on the public sewer system. It should be noted that while the floor area of the buildings may be large relative to residential development the actual number of people on the premises on a daily basis will not be significant and therefore the population equivalent and additional load on the sewer will not be significant. 12.27 Subject to the application of appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to be able to comply with Policy 6. 12.28 Policy 11 – Compatibility of Neighbouring Uses

Development proposals adjacent to: existing or consented general industrial/storage sites (use classes 5 & 6); mineral extraction or waste management sites, LDP Economic Proposal sites; non-residential caravan sites; and renewable energy development should not constrain these existing or consented uses. This may be achieved either through creation of a buffer zone between the uses or by the use of other design and landscaping techniques. New development proposals must: a) minimise any adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent uses to an acceptable level; and/or b) make provision to enable re-location of an non compatible use to a more appropriate site in the case of larger scale developments.

12.29 This policy requires consideration of the compatibility of neighbouring uses. The neighbouring uses are agricultural land and the existing building and yard areas used as an auction mart. 12.30 The Auction Mart is not one specifically listed in the first section of this policy, and the site is not a Local Development Plan Economic Proposal site. However consideration of parts a) and b) is relevant. 12.31 It is proposed that the application site would be fenced with no interaction with the agricultural operations. The surface water from the building and yard areas would require to be treated with a SuDS system, managed through the Building Standards process and therefore water flows would be treated and appropriately attenuated. It is therefore assessed that the development would not adversely impact on the neighbouring agricultural use. 12.32 The application site is adjacent to the site occupied by the Auction Mart, which operates stock sales on six days a year. The operators acknowledge that traffic congestion is an issue on three of these occasions. The main problem identified by the operators is with regard to a section of road between the Auction Mart and the Redburn junction; this part of the road has no identified passing places and while wider than a single track road is not double track. With the current situation it is difficult to ensure the free flow of traffic to and from the Auction Mart facility. It is possible that without careful consideration of the road traffic issues and the cumulative impact, the proposed development would have the potential to have a negative effect on the operations of the Mart. 12.33 An assessment by Technical Services concluded that although the cumulative effect of the proposed development would exacerbate the flow of traffic there is a technical solution to the issue in the form of minor widening of this particular section of carriageway. If the necessary measures are put in place it is considered that the development would not impact on the access to/from or the operations of the Auction Mart. The aspects relating to traffic management are considered more fully at Paragraphs 12.52 to 12.56 below. 12.34 In terms of capacity of water and sewage capacity no objections have been received from Scottish Water regarding the capacity of service provision. Further, a review of the planning permission and historic consent drawings for the Auction Mart do not suggest there would be a clash between the proposed development and the underground service arrangements pertaining to the Auction Mart. 12.35 Overall, it is possible, by means of planning conditions or planning agreement, for the proposed development would be compatible with the neighbouring uses and it is therefore concluded to be consistent with Policy 11. 12.36 Policy 15 – Economic Development The preferred locations identified as the main sites to deliver the strategic business needs of the islands are listed in Proposal E1. These locations will be safeguard against uses or development that would compromise the business function of the site. Further sites also suitable for a range of commercial developments are lists in Proposal E2. Proposals for economic development outwith these sites may be permitted if it can be demonstrated that none of the sites identified in Proposals E1 and E2 is suitable to accommodate the proposed development, or there is specific economic need at the proposed location. For large sites details of proposed phasing, infrastructure and other relevant matters may be required in support of the planning application. The provision of waste management facilities will be required in accordance with Policy 8 Waste Management.

12.37 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan identifies Proposal sites for a range of uses including housing and economic development. Proposals E1a (Arnish), E1b (Creed Business Park), E1c (Gleann Seileach Business Park and E2b (Dormitory (South East) Business Site are those located in the vicinity of Stornoway. For economic proposals, on sites not included in these lists to be acceptable, it must be shown that none of the E1 or E2 sites are suitable to accommodate the proposed development. Alternatively it must be shown that there is a ‘specific economic need at the proposed location.’ 12.38 There is no apparent justification and no evidence has been submitted that would support the view that there is a ‘specific economic need at the proposed location.’ 12.39 Of the E1 and E2 sites listed above neither E1c (Gleann Seileach Business Park) nor E2b (Dormitory (South East) Business) Site could accommodate the builder’s yard use. There are therefore only two sites that would be suitable in terms of location and ‘Use Class’: these are Arnish and the Creed Business Park. The developer has indicated that he had investigated both sites and discounted them both. 12.40 The developer has submitted correspondence from HIE indicating that the organisation was unable to offer any land at Arnish. 12.41 The developer has also submitted correspondence from the Stornoway Trust. It states that, with regard to the Creed Business Park, the Stornoway Trust is in the process of taking over Highland and Islands Enterprise’s (HIE) interest in the large enclosure known as Plots One and Two at the Business Park. The Trust has stated that the intention is that all the available land at Creed Park will be advertised for lease with interested parties given a long term tenure option. It expects that demand will be greater than supply and is not able to give any party any assurances. 12.42 In order to support the developer’s proposals the following justification for choosing the application site was submitted.  Lack of sites with suitable buildings and external spaces being available for sale.  Sites that are suitable are not for sale.  Problems with green field sites in Stornoway area including reluctance of Grazing’s Committees to release land, and Stornoway Trust’s Policy to lease, not sell land.  No new commercial sites identified in the new Local Plan.  Criteria for site selection included, site within Stornoway area, capacity for all needs, suitable for commercial use, not near residential properties and close to main suppliers in Stornoway.  The application site was the preferred site from the above analysis. 12.43 In terms of the interpretation of the requirements of Policy 15, the Policy states that ‘either’ it must be shown that none of the E1 or E2 sites are suitable to accommodate the proposed development or there is a ‘specific economic need at the proposed location.’ 12.44 In assessing the Development against this Policy it is important to consider the context and the aims of the Policy. It is stated in the Local Development Plan that ‘growth in economic activity and the creation of employment opportunities are key elements in addressing population decline in the Outer Hebrides. Within an area where the Gross Domestic Product is significantly lower than the national average, a flexible approach to attracting and accommodating new and expanding business is essential.’ 12.45 The developer has submitted correspondence which indicates that the E1 sites at Arnish and the Creed Park are not available. The developer has sought, unsuccessfully, to obtain a site that was specifically identified in the Local Plan as required by Policy 15. None of the E1 or E2 sites that could accommodate this particular proposed development were available. Therefore, in terms of fulfilling the requirements of the Policy, it would be reasonable to conclude that none of the sites are ‘suitable’. 12.46 It is concluded that as there are no suitable sites available within the Proposal Sites identified as E1 or E2 sites, that the proposals for economic development may be permitted outwith these sites (subject to compliance with the other provisions of the Development Plan). The bringing forward of an application on this site in Steinish would therefore not be inconsistent with Policy 15. 12.47 Policy 28 – Natural Heritage Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle. Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted where:  an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or  there are no alternative solutions, and  there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Development that affects a National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be permitted where:  it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or  any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. All Ramsar wetland sites are also Natura sites and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are included in the statutory requirements noted above. Where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is satisfied that:  there is no satisfactory alternative, and  the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and  the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle. Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted where:  an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or  there are no alternative solutions, and  there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Development that affects a National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be permitted where:  it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or  any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. All Ramsar wetland sites are also Natura sites and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are included in the statutory requirements noted above. Where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is satisfied that:  there is no satisfactory alternative, and  the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and  the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution. Applicants should submit supporting evidence for any development meeting these tests, demonstrating both the need for the development and that a full range of possible alternative courses of action have been properly examined and none found to acceptably meet the need identified. Development affecting the Loch Stiapavat, Local Nature Reserve (LNR) should aim to enhance the site and will not be permitted if it will have an unacceptable impact on the features of interest of the site. In addition to the conditions listed above, developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List* for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species). *http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/biodiversity-scotland/Scottish-biodiversity-list/

12.48 The application site is not within a Natura site, RASAR Site, National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) and does not support any known European protected species. Consideration has been given to UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species and SNH has been consulted. 12.49 SNH has advised that it has checked corncrake survey data for 1993 to 2016 and confirms that there have been no records of corncrake calling from this field in any of these years. The closest record is a calling male in the field across the road towards the shore, which is 130 metres away at the nearest point. This record is from 2014. SNH advises that it knows of no other significant natural heritage interests at this particular location’ 12.50 The closet designated area is Tong Saltings Site of Special Scientific Area, the nearest part of the site being the sands at the bottom of the field on the opposite side of the road. It is assessed that the normal activities that are undertaken in a builder’s yard are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the features of the SSSI which are Breeding bird assemblage, Mudflats, Saltmarsh and Sand Dunes. 12.51 It has been assessed that no natural heritage designated sites or protected species are likely to be affected by the development. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development complies with Policy 28. 12.52 Policy 1 of the Supplementary Guidance on Roads and Parking

Road design and car parking requirements shall be commensurate with the type, location and scale of the development. Assessment will seek to attain a balance between the needs of car parking and roads and wider socio‐economic and environmental considerations.

12.53 Policy 2 of the Supplementary Guidance on Roads and Parking

Car parking in line with standards detailed in Tables 1‐3 (Appendix 1) will, subject to the provisions of Policy 3, be required in all new developments. All standard spaces should be a minimum of 2.5m x 5m. Specific standards for accessible parking are included in Table 4 and Fig 3 (Appendix 1). In line with LDP Policy 26 Transport Infrastructure, provision for storage of cycles will be required for: new public buildings; community facilities; schools; business premises and proposed housing consisting of flatted dwellings. Where requirements are not met, the applicant will be asked to justify the adequacy of the proposed provision and any wider public or other benefits arising from the development and may be required to amend the proposal to accord with the standards.

12.54 In assessing the proposed development against the requirements of the Supplementary Guidance on Roads and Parking, Technical Services has advised that there is sufficient room to accommodate the necessary parking and turning area within the site, and a safe and satisfactory access can be constructed to the site providing the standard access requirements are met. These include bellmouth radii suitable for long vehicles, visibility splays consistent with the public highway and suitable siting/height of boundary fences and planting. In addition, Technical Services stated that any damage caused by the developer should be repaired at the developer’s expense. It was therefore advised that a joint pre- construction survey must be arranged by the Developer. If the anticipated damage is likely to occur during the construction phase only, a post construction survey should also be required. It is therefore confirmed that it is possible to provide a safe and acceptable access from/to the site on to Simon’s Road. The site is also adequate in size to accommodate a satisfactory amount of parking. 12.55 Technical Services (Roads) has considered the capacity of the existing Steinish Road to accommodate the additional traffic that this development may generate. Given the anticipated increase in size and frequency of traffic, the advice received is that part of the existing carriageway between the site and the junction at Mossend would require to be widened to 5.5 metres for a distance of 100 metres to accommodate two vehicles passing each other. This area is outwith the boundary of the site and the control of the developer. In order to ensure that this is carried out before the development of the site commences it would be necessary for a Section 75 Planning Agreement to regulate this requirement to be concluded prior to any consent being issued. 12.56 It is possible by means of a Section 75 Planning Agreement and planning conditions to ensure that the public highway is widened, a safe access to the site and sufficient parking is provided to satisfy the requirements of Policy 2 of the Supplementary Guidance on Roads and Parking. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.57 From the assessment above it is concluded that the development would physically and visually integrate into the settlement, would not erode the character of the rural settlement and would not threaten ‘the continuation of crofting’. In addition the siting, design, scale, car parking provision and plot layout of the proposed development are considered to be consistent with the terms of Policy 4 and the Supplementary Guidance on Roads and Parking. The proposed development does respect the existing linear form of the landscape character and the shape and form of the proposed buildings are not dissimilar to larger agricultural buildings and the buildings of the adjacent Auction Mart. At a ridge height of 7m, the workshop/store building is not taller than some of the larger houses in the village. When viewed from a distance set against the existing Mart building the proposed building is not considered to be incongruous. Overall it is concluded that the development would comply with Policy 5. The proposed development is therefore considered to be consistent with all relevant criteria of Policy 1: Rural Settlements. 12.58 As there are no suitable sites available at the identified Economic Development - E1 or E2 Proposal sites, the proposal to develop a site for industrial purposes outwith these sites would not be inconsistent with Policy 15. 12.59 In addition it has been assessed that no natural heritage designated sites or protected species are likely to be affected by the development, and therefore it has been concluded that the proposed development complies with Policy 28. 12.60 Therefore following an assessment of the proposal against the Comhairle’s adopted planning policies, it has been concluded that the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2012.

MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider other relevant material considerations, for and against the proposal, and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. The weight to be attached to any relevant material consideration is for the judgment of the decision-maker. Two main tests are used when deciding whether a consideration is material and relevant:  It should serve or be related to the purpose of planning. This means it should relate to the development and use of land.  It should fairly and reasonably relate to the particular application being determined. SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY 13.2 Scottish Planning Policy is a material Planning Consideration. Development Plans, as set out in the Scottish Planning Policy, should enable sustainable economic activity and growth, which is responsive to the economic environment of rural and island areas and provides scope for diversification in the rural economy. The proposed Outer Hebrides Development Plan seeks to enable this. OUTER HEBRIDES LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED PLAN 2017 13.3 The relevant policy in the proposed plan relating to economic development is Policy ED1. It has a slightly different emphasis than the corresponding policy in the current Development Plan. Policy ED1 of the Proposed Plan states that the main sites identified for economic use ‘should be safeguarded against uses or development that would compromise the business function or economic use of the sites’; and in addition that ‘development sites, in other locations, will also be considered in recognition of the diverse nature of the economic activity within the Outer Hebrides.’ 13.4 This is a change in policy direction from that set out in the 2012 Adopted Plan and reflects the Comhairle settled view that locations other than those identified as Economic Development Proposal sites will be considered as suitable for economic development/business uses. 13.5 This material consideration lends weight in favour of the proposal. Views of a Statutory Consultee 13.6 The Crofting Commission is a statutory consultee on planning applications ‘where the development may have an adverse effect on the continued use of land for crofting’. The Crofting Commission has responded with a number of points. 13.7 The Crofting Commission are of the opinion that the township of Steinish is primarily a small crofting township of 19 croft tenancies and therefore have concerns that the development proposed is more industrial in nature, and if approved would have a negative impact on the distinctiveness of the crofting township. 13.8 It is noted that the proposed development is located beside the Stornoway Livestock Auction Mart, which is a hugely important asset for all crofters in Lewis and Harris for the buying and selling of their livestock. Should the application be approved it would be vital that all the privileges currently held such as access and existing services be secured. 13.9 It is noted that the road which serves the Auction Mart and the township is currently a single track road with limited access and parking. Our understanding is that there is already difficult traffic congestion on sales days. Should the development proceed, then there is a concern that the road would require upgrading, which could then lead to further development opportunities such as the current proposal which would result in a definite erosion of the crofting township character. 13.10 The Crofting Commission would assess that this land is better quality in bye croft land as demonstrated earlier in this document. It is considered that there would be a demand for such a croft should it ever become available and deliver many of the benefits that the crofting system delivers such as:  Population retention through occupation of crofts.  Various environmental benefits through proper use  Increased production of livestock and food  Affordable housing solutions through incoming crofters obtaining Croft House Grant scheme assistance.

Crofting Commission’s Policy Plan 13.11 As stated in the Policy Plan any proposed development should use the least possible amount of productive croft land. ..It is stated that the proposed development being declared as 0.585 ha is considered to be a significantly large area of good quality inbye land which should not be removed from crofting tenure.’ 13.12 Consideration has been given to the Crofting Commission response in terms of Planning policy 1 and also against the guidance note prepared by the Crofting Commission titled ‘General Policy Response for Planning Consultations’ which states: 13.13 ‘The Crofting Commission seeks to promote and protect the sustainability of crofting. When considering the relative costs and benefits of development on croft land, the Commission’s key concerns are that:  The siting of the development does not unreasonably restrict the flexibility to cultivate and move stock on the remaining croft land.  The siting of the development does not unreasonably restrict access to the remaining croft land and that a minimum of 4m access to all residual area is maintained.  The siting of the development avoids the better quality soils of the croft.  The development does not have a detrimental impact on the area of land available for agricultural activity and therefore on the agricultural viability of the croft’. 13.14 In this instance the siting is a portion of a field parcel by the roadside and given the siting relative to the scale of the croft and the extent of road frontage it enjoys, it would not unreasonably restrict the flexibility to cultivate and move stock on the remaining croft land, would not unreasonably restrict access to the remaining croft, and would preserve access wider than 4 m to the remainder of the croft. While the development would be sited on unimproved grassland which the commission advise is Category 4.1, a site visit would indicate it is not the best quality part of the croft, that being the arable fields on the seaward side of the road. Further the removal of 0.585 ha from a croft of 19ha would not have a detrimental impact on the area of land available for agricultural activity in the Steinish area as a whole and as the Croft would still be wholly lettable and workable, would not have an adverse impact on the agricultural viability of the croft. 13.15 Due consideration has been placed on the views of the Crofting Commission but the planning assessment is such that the development is unlikely in terms of the whole croft or the village to have an adverse effect on the continued use of land for crofting. PLANNING HISTORY 13.16 The land is under crofting use and there is no planning history relating to this site. MATTERS RAISED IN REPRESENTATIONS 13.17 The matters raised in representations are extensive. For ease of reference and to ensure each issue that is relevant and material in planning is appropriately considered and given due weight, the issues raised have been grouped together under topic headings. Road capacity and safety 13.18 Matters relating to parking provision and roads are addressed at Paragraphs 12.52 to 12.56 above. 13.19 However, given the number of specific points raised in representation on this issue, further guidance was sought from Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) and their response is provided below each issue, prior to the assessment of the Planning Service. Representation comment 13.20 Single track road – already at capacity, danger from speeding and wide vehicles. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Reasonable volume of traffic for this type of road. There is good visibility along the length of the road. Any existing concerns about speed do not relate to this planning application. Planning Service response It is the view of Technical Services (Roads) that in relation to the specific impact of the proposed development the road should be improved through slight widening over a 100m stretch. This would accommodate a slight increase in use by wide vehicles. Technical Services (Roads) also advise that it has adequate capacity and that speeding drivers is not a matter that can be attributed to this planning application. Subject to the widening of Simon’s Road, to be managed by a Section 75 Planning Agreement, this concern would not add significant weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.21 The road is not fit for continued use by heavy vehicles. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment There is no weight limit on this road and it has been used consistently by heavy vehicles eg oil lorry, refuse vehicle and articulated vehicles for new houses. Planning Service response It is the view of Technical Services (Roads) that the road has adequate load bearing capacity for heavy vehicles. The proposal may lead to a slight increase in the number of heavy vehicles using the road e.g. transportation of heavy plant to the yard for service or storage at holiday times, but an increase in heavy traffic such that it would render the road unfit is considered unlikely. This concern would not add significant weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.22 Existing passing places are unsatisfactory and private driveways are being used a lay-bys. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment The existing passing places are adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Planning Service response It is the view of Technical Services (Roads) that the section of single track road with passing places is adequate to service the development and that slight widening over a 100m stretch that is neither single nor double track would be sufficient to accommodate a slight increase in use by wide vehicles. Representation comment 13.23 The road is poorly lit and is deteriorating from wear and tear, neglect and flooding. After heavy rain the road [edge] is sometimes flooded, and with lack of formal pavement along the road, pedestrians are forced to walk on the carriageway. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment The points raised relate to road maintenance and not the current planning application. Planning Service response It is the Planning Service view that the condition of the adopted road is not specific to the current planning application and the point, while noted, would not add weight to justify a refusal. Representation comment 13.24 A section of the road has a white line demarcating a strip of land designated for pedestrians. This is currently used by drivers when passing other vehicles. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Not considered relevant to this planning application. Planning Service response Driver skill and behaviour cannot be attributed to the current planning proposal and the point would not add weight to justify a refusal. Representation comment 13.25 The development would increase traffic (applicant has quoted up to 18% increase) on the road - 30 commercial vehicles could have the addition of 100 vehicle movements a day. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment It is considered that the section of road used can accommodate this increase in traffic movements. Planning Service response Simon’s Road serves a number of crofts and residential premises and is not unduly busy. Increased traffic movements would peak at the start and end of the working day with only a small number of additional traffic movements during the day. It is therefore acknowledged that while there will be an increase of traffic arising from the development it would not be significant in road traffic terms and would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.26 Health and safety risks to other road users: pedestrians, children, cyclists and runners, dog walkers, fishermen, careworkers (staff take residents of Blar Buidhe out for walks with wheelchairs and walking aids) and animals all of whom currently use this road. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Increased traffic may result in slower speed and greater pedestrian awareness. Planning Service response As discussed above driver skill and behaviour is the responsibility of the driver. While the concerns are acknowledged and the developer has been made aware of them the points would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.27 Development could compromise the inadequate road safety particularly on sale days at the adjacent auction mart, where people are already forced to park on the single track road and police are in attendance (mart advises that they hold 6 sales a year and of these only the 3 major sales cause congestion). Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment The parking for the development would all be contained within the site boundary. Planning Service response The application incorporates sufficient provision for on-site parking. There will be a small increase in daily traffic movements attributable to the development and a recommendation that 100m of Simon’s Road be slightly widened. When both points are considered the overall impact directly attributable to the development is considered to be near neutral. Representation comment 13.28 The additional traffic on the road will have an adverse impact on airport emergency services vehicular access to the airport. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment The proposed development will not restrict emergency access to the airport as all parking would be within the site boundary. Traffic will clear quickly for emergency vehicles. Planning Service response The application incorporates sufficient provision for on-site parking. There will be a small increase in daily traffic movements attributable to the development but these are unlikely to restrict emergency access. This point would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.29 There is a new fire training facility at the Steinish end of the airport with the associated increase in traffic accessing that facility. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Not considered relevant to this planning application. Planning Service response As stated above the application incorporates sufficient provision for on-site parking. There will be a small increase in daily traffic movements attributable to the development but these are unlikely to restrict emergency access. This point would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.30 Development could restrict emergency (ambulance, police and fire) vehicle access to airport and to the village of Steinish. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment The development will not restrict emergency access to the airport as all parking would be within the site boundary. Traffic will clear quickly for emergency vehicles. Planning Service response As stated above the application incorporates sufficient provision for on-site parking. There will be a small increase in daily traffic movements attributable to the development but these are unlikely to restrict emergency access. This point would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.31 The traffic is already held up when the refuse lorries are making collections. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Not considered relevant to this planning application. Planning Service response It is not unusual on roads within the town and rural areas for traffic to be held up behind the refuse wagon. This is existing and would not be unduly exacerbated by the proposal and would not justify a refusal of the application. Representation comment 13.32 Development of the site should be conditional on Simon’s Road from its junction with Redburn being widened to double width standard with adequate provision for safe operation an uninterrupted access to and from the Mart. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Additional road improvements will be considered as required and reasonable by the roads authority and accommodated through a Section 75 agreement. Planning Service response The Planning Authority may require a developer to carry out improvement to a road consistent with that which is assessed to be required and attributable to the proposed development. It is not appropriate to require a developer to carry out improvements that are required for another purpose. Technical Services (Roads) has carried out a thorough review of the Simon’s Road and concluded that minor road widening is required to accommodate the development and therefore this would require to be managed through a planning agreement that would need to be signed before any planning permission is issued. The need for road improvement related to the additional impact of the development is acknowledged. Technical Services (Roads) require improvement work and a Section 75 Agreement would govern it and therefore this issue would not merit a refusal. Representation comment 13.33 Money should be spent regardless of any development on the road – a curbed walkway/cycle path with strategic ups or even speed cameras to limit the speed to 30mph. Revenue from the camera could be used to make road improvements. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Not considered relevant to this planning application. Planning Service response While the point is noted it is not a material planning consideration. Representation comment 13.34 There is a deep ditch on the left hand side of the road, which could cause a fatality if someone clipped the verge and toppled when letting another car by. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Point noted, however such an incident relates to driver behaviour rather than the infrastructure or the planning application. Planning Service response While the point is noted, the proposal involves providing a bellmouth access to comply with roads required standards and the concern relates to driver behaviour rather than any consequence of the planning application. Representation comment 13.35 Road widening would encroach on field boundaries. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Not considered relevant to this planning application. Planning Service response It is for the developer to reach appropriate agreement with the landowner regarding road widening. The improvements required by Technical Services (Roads) fall within the existing road ‘corridor’.

Representation comment 13.36 When the Auction Mart was proposed an undertaking was given that the road would be upgraded to double track. Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) comment Not relevant to this planning application. Planning Service response This is not a material planning consideration. Rural residential/crofting character Representation comment 13.37 SNH in their published advice discuss ‘sustainable places’ and comment that sustainable places are for people. They are characterised by greenspace that improves the quality of local environments, promote walking and cycling and support mental well being. Steinish certainly fulfils these criteria. Further to this, sustainable places foster a strong connection between people and places and high levels of involvement by people in planning and managing their local environment. Planning Service response The development would occupy 0.585 ha of a 19ha croft. There is extensive further greenspace within and around Steinish. The Planning Service is aware of the strength of feeling within the village around this proposal but an objective assessment of its impact against planning policy is such that it is not accepted that this development will change the character of Steinish to such a degree that it will no longer be a sustainable space. The Planning system has invited and welcomes the comment of communities as a means of involving local people and increasing scrutiny of planning proposals. Issues raised are considered and comment is made as to whether or not they carry weight in the planning decision making framework. Representation comment 13.38 The proposed development within an historic crofting township and is contrary to the ethos of the Local Plan. Planning Service response This is a general comment regarding the Local Plan. A full assessment of the relevant policies in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, Policies 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15 and 28 is provided at Section 12 above. The assessment concluded that the proposed development would not be contrary with the Development Plan. This point would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.39 Development not in keeping/will ruin character of village – crofting, farming, rural community….; detrimental to its future. Planning Service response The assessment of the character of the development and its context and the suitability of using the site as a builder’s yard is considered under the assessment of Policy 1, 4 and 5 above. The assessment is that the proposal would not impact on landscape character, would not be detrimental to the continuation of crofting or impact Croft 13 to a degree that it was no longer workable or lettable. The proposal while of different character is a Monday to Saturday operation with working hours conditions and is appropriately designed with appropriate boundary treatment. As such it is assessed unlikely to be detrimental to the future of the village and would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.40 Village has always been quiet and close knit. Residents have keen interest in crofting and raising livestock. Planning Service response As discussed at paragraph 13.49 below, any nuisance caused by noise could be controlled by the use of appropriate planning conditions. The assessment against the viability of crofting in Policy 1 above concluded that the proposed development would not compromise the future of crofting in the area and would not add weight to a refusal.

Representation comment 13.41 Industrial use developments should not be considered for this village/area. Planning Service response A Builders Yard is a type of ‘Use’ in its own right as it has different characteristics to an industrial use. These are described at Paragraph 4.6 above. It does not fall within a General Industrial Use Class. Any Change of Use from a Builder’s Yard would require an express Planning permission. There is no Policy in the Development Plan that expressly precludes establishing this type of use in a rural settlement. Each case therefore has to be assessed on its merits in relation to the relevant policies in the Comhairle’s adopted Local Development Plan. Therefore this point would not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.42 Site would need to be de-crofted and only certain types of development are permitted. Planning Service response The legal status of the tenure of land is not a valid planning consideration. The tests applicable to de-crofting are ones for the Crofting Commission. In terms of planning policy, Policy 1 – Rural Settlements of the Development Plan considers the potential effect on the continuation of crofting of developing this site. It was concluded at paragraph 12.8 to 12.10 that the proposal did not threaten the continuation of crofting as it is 0.585 acre site on a croft of 19ha and while acknowledged as higher quality in-bye land, it is not considered to be amongst the best land on the Croft. The Guidance note prepared by the Crofting Commission titled ‘General Policy Response for Planning Consultations’ states ‘The Crofting Commission will consider the proposals in detail at the decrofting stage and reserves the right to review the extent to which these issues [see below] have been taken into account at the planning stage.  The siting of the development does not unreasonably restrict the flexibility to cultivate and move stock on the remaining croft land.  The siting of the development does not unreasonably restrict access to the remaining croft land and that a minimum of 4m access to all residual area is maintained.  The siting of the development avoids the better quality soils of the croft.  The development does not have a detrimental impact on the area of land available for agricultural activity and therefore on the agricultural viability of the croft’ In addition it will consider the following issues: 1. The effect of the purpose on the sustainability in the locality of the croft on:-  Crofting;  The Crofting Community;  The landscape;  The environment. 2. The effect of the purpose on the social and cultural benefits associated with crofting. 3. In addition, where the purpose relates to a development of the croft for which planning permission has been obtained the Commission may, notwithstanding the existence of planning permission, take into account the effect the proposed development would have on the:  Croft;  Estate; and  Crofting Community in the locality of the croft’. Therefore notwithstanding the decision on a Planning Application, the Crofting Commission, will, based on its own policy, assess an application for de-crofting and may come to a different decision to that of the Planning Authority.

Visual amenity/landscape character/design Representation comment 13.43 Adverse impact on the visual amenity of crofting/rural landscape; Perimeter fence – unsightly and is more suited to a commercial or industrial area; and the design and appearance of the building is out of keeping and out of character with the existing properties in the village. Planning Service comment Policies 4 Siting and Design and 5 Landscape are assessed at paragraphs 12.3 to 12.23. It is concluded that the impact on the visual amenity, crofting and the landscape is provided in the assessment against the relevant Planning Policies 4 Siting and Design and 5 Landscape above at paragraphs 12.3 to 12.23. It is concluded that the detailed siting, design, scale, car parking provision are considered to be acceptable in terms of the provisions of Policy 4. It is further concluded that the proposals are consistent with aims of Policy 5 in that the integrity of the landscape character is not compromised.

Loss of agricultural land Representation comment 13.44 There is a limited amount of productive grazing land in the area (agricultural land already lost land in Melbost, and there is proposed development at Goathill). The Comhairle should consider some type of greenbelt policy to save the remaining good agricultural land around Stornoway. Planning Service comment These are matters which are not specific to this planning application. Matters such as this are relevant when the Comhairle is setting out its planning policy. Planning Policy is set out in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan which goes through an extensive consultation process with elected members, statutory consultees including the Crofting Commission and the wider public. These comments therefore do not add weight to a refusal. Precedent Representation comment 13.45 If allowed would increase chance of future commercial and large residential developments. Planning Service This application is assessed against the Development Plan and any other material considerations including the planning history of the site. The creation of an undesirable “precedent”, making it difficult to resist similar proposals elsewhere is a material consideration and therefore the planning decision on this application will become a material planning issue in the consideration of future planning applications in the area. Notwithstanding this, each application is considered on its merits and the specific circumstances pertaining to it. This does not add weight to a refusal. Alternative sites/better use Representation comment 13.46 Other areas more suitable for example Parkend, Creed Enterprise Park, Bells Road, Rigs Roads, James Street to Seaforth Road. The development is on a greenfield site when there are a number of brownfield sites identified in previous local plans which are suitable (e.g. Bells Road). Better use of site would be for a car park to the auction mart. Planning Service response The availability or otherwise of other ‘more suitable sites’ is not per se a legitimate reason for refusing planning permission. Although consideration of other available sites was made above at 12.37 to 12.46 it was in relation specifically to the terms of Policy 13 of the Development Plan. The Planning Authority must consider the application as submitted and not whether there are more desirable locations for the proposals or, whether there are other preferred uses for this site. The comments do not add weight to a refusal. Public sewage system Representation comment 13.47 Existing sewage system potentially inadequate to cope with proposed development. Planning Service response This issue was considered in the assessment of Policy 6 above at paragraphs 12.25 to 12.27. It was concluded that subject to appropriate conditions, the development would be consistent with the Policy. Therefore this point does not add weight to a refusal. EIA Representation comment 13.48 Development should not proceed without an EIA in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. Planning Service response Given its location, scale and non-complex character the proposal which is for a single use/operator of a non-industrial nature does not fall within the criteria of development that are required to be assessed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The comments do not add weight to a refusal. Quality of life/amenity of residents Representation comment 13.49 Operating hours – the operating hours of the yard will be out of keeping with a village. Nature of O’Mac’s work may require them to operate the yard during unsociable hours which will disturb local residents. No guarantee that the firm will keep to any stipulated hours. Noise – development will cause unacceptable noise disturbance through workshop activities (this may go on beyond normal operating hours), works vehicles and HGV deliveries. Planning Service response The impact of excessive noise, dust, the development operating at unsociable hours and waste management are valid considerations. The advice from Comhairle Environmental Health Service considers that any negative impacts during construction could be controlled by the addition of appropriate planning conditions. On-going operations would be managed by a working hours condition but levels of noise during the day are not such that the Environmental Health Service recommends conditions on noise emissions. The comments do not add weight to a refusal. Representation comment 13.50 Air Quality – will be impacted on due to increased dust from workshop activities and stored building materials. Dust noise generated by Mart is already excessive – proposed development will exacerbate existing intolerant situation. Pollution – risk of pollutants seeping from site onto neighbouring property from stored materials and workshop waste. Waste – Manufacturing of SIPs or any other product on the site should be clearly stated on the application form, as there would be an increase in waste as a result of this type of development; dirt, debris and waste materials will be blown across the village. Pest control - Open skips will lead to an increase in vermin. Planning Service response Given the nature of the proposed development, most waste material will be inert waste, the storage of which is unlikely to contribute to an increase in the occurrence of vermin. Modern workshops contain measures that control dust from workshop activities and materials stored externally e.g. aggregate is likely to be of small quantity and/or covered. Dust is unlikely to be significant. It is therefore considered that these issues do not add weight to a refusal. Impact on Auction Mart 13.51 The welfare of livestock would be adversely affected by noise dust and from diesel fumes from vehicles accessing the site daily. The auction Mart require continuous uninterrupted supply of three phase electricity during any diversionary or construction works. With the access for the proposed site adjacent to the mart access development of the site will jeopardise the future operation of the mart. Assurance sought that development of, or connection to, the public sewer system will not inhibit or in any way interfere with the approved effluent discharge system constructed when the mart was built. Planning Service response The proposed development has been assessed against the possible impact on the existing operations of the neighbouring sites at 12.29 to 12.35 and it was concluded that the matter that can clearly be justified in terms of the application is a widening of the road carriageway over a length of 100 metres. This would be secured by means of a planning agreement and planning conditions. Otherwise the development would be compatible with the existing neighbouring uses including the auction mart and stock held there for short periods of time. This point does not add weight to a refusal. Impact on wildlife Representation comment 13.52 Area important to a variety of species (e.g. bats, corncrakes, white tailed eagles, snipe, lapwing, curlew, corn bunting and other migrating birds), some of conservation concern or endangered or protected species. The construction and operation of commercial premises and industrial activities (increased noise, night time flood light and pollution) could have a detrimental impact on wildlife. The area as a SSSI designation related to the unique wildlife habitat. The Comhairle has been requested to contact the relevant authorities for guidance on the threat to wildlife and to consider an environmental impact survey. Planning Service response Any potential impacts on the natural heritage have been assessed at 12.48 to 12.51 and it was concluded that the proposed development is unlikely to affect any natural heritage designated sites or protected species. This point does not add weight to a refusal. Impact on Water Quality/ wild salmonids/ Fishing Representation comment 13.53 Steinish estuary is a well known and productive salmonid habitat. Impact on this salmonid population needs to be fully assessed and evaluated. Potential for impacts from toxic building materials/chemicals stored on site causing pollution hazard by spillage/ contamination getting into water table or field drains and then into the estuary. Planning Service response Given the distance and intervening land between the proposed yard and the estuary, the building and yard being constructed to modern standards including a SuDS system, and standard environmental controls by the operator, it is unlikely that there will be toxic or hazardous impact on the water table and estuary. Therefore this point does not add weight to a refusal. 13.54 Non-material considerations  Flight path – ‘Steinish is the helicopter flight path for the Airport to the Western Isles hospital. Any flying debris may endanger the helicopter and crew’.  Loss of property value in village – due to noise and pollutants.  Loss of view - The development of the site would obscure open views from Steinish, Broadbay and Plasterfield.  Local connection - The applicant/contractor has no ties to village and the development will not benefit any of the residents of the village. Planning Service response The impact on property value, loss of view and any personal comments on the origin and connection of the applicant are not material planning considerations. The consultation responses from the Ministry of Defence and the Highlands and Islands Airports Authority have raised no objection to the development in relation to aviation safeguarding or flightpath. This point does not add weight to a refusal. Procedural matters Representation comments 13.55 Neighbour notification – only mart was notified and this building is only periodically used, surely all the Steinish residents who use Simons Road to access the village should have been notified. The requirement for only neighbours within 25m of a large building scheme site is flawed. Request to speak to at the meeting of the Committee where application to be decided (Objector 13). Would like to know date of committee meeting asap. Planning Service response Under the terms of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Regulations 2013 the Planning Authority is required to notify any neighbouring properties. Where there are no premises relating to neighbouring land it is necessary for the application to be advertised by the Planning Authority. It is confirmed that the application was advertised in the Stornoway Gazette on 13 July 2017 and 21 September 2017 (amended plans) and the neighbouring properties notified on 13 July 2017 and 15 September 2017. All parties who made representations were notified of when the application will be considered by the Planning Application Board. It is not practice for a member of the public to speak at the Planning Applications Board, when it is considering an application for a development categorised as a ‘Local Development’ in terms of the Planning Hierarchy. This point does not add weight to a refusal.

13.56 Having assessed the material considerations it is concluded that there are none that are of sufficient weight that would warrant a refusal.

CONCLUSION 14.1 The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant policies in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. It was considered that the proposed development would physically and visually integrate into the settlement and would not threaten the future of crofting. In terms of the siting, design, scale, car parking, and plot layout the development is considered acceptable. The overall character and integrity of the landscape character will be maintained. The development can be served by the existing public water supply and with suitable conditions the surface water and waste water can be dealt with appropriately. 14.2 None of the identified sites for economic development in the Development Plan are available and no natural heritage designated sites or protected species are likely to be affected. Although part of the road between the Anderson Road/Mossend junction and the application site is not considered to be wide enough to accommodate the expected additional traffic generated by the proposed development, Technical Services (Roads) have recommended widening of the carriageway to 5.5 metres over a 100 metre stretch. It is possible, through the conclusion of a Section 75 planning agreement prior to a planning decision being issued, to ensure that the necessary road works would be carried out. 14.3 Overall it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant policies in the Outer Hebrides Development Plan and there are no material considerations of any weight to suggest a decision other than approval.

RECOMMENDATION 15.1. The proposal is considered to comply with Policies 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 28 and 29 of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and with Supplementary Guidance: “Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout”. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the planning conditions in Appendix 1 to this Report.

APPENDIX 1

SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Condition 1 The access road to the site shall be completed in accordance with the access diagram 17/00306rev, attached to and forming part of this decision. Reason In the interests of road safety.

Condition 2 Within three months of the completion of the development, the first 7.5 metres of the access, measured from the edge of the existing metalled portion of the highway, shall join the main road at right angles and be surfaced in bitmac (or other suitable material to create a hard surface to be agreed in writing beforehand by the Comhairle as Planning Authority). Reason In order to reduce the possibility of loose material being carried onto the highway in the interests of road safety.

Condition 3 At no time throughout the life of the development to which this permission relates shall there be anything within the site (shown edged red on the approved plans) which would be over one metre in height within a splay measured five metres down the centre of the access from the edge of the public road, by seventy metres along the public road on either side of the access road. The one metre in height mentioned above shall be measured from the level of any part of the access which is within five metres of the edge of the public highway. Reason To enable the drivers of vehicles leaving the site to have a clear view along the public road in both directions.

Condition 4 Before the development becomes operational, the off road parking and turning area shall be completed. Reason To ensure adequate provision is made for parking clear of the highway in the interests of road safety.

Condition 5 The means of access hereby approved shall be surfaced, graded and drained so that throughout the life of the development, no surface water flows from the access on to the public highway or vice versa. Reason In the interests of road safety.

Condition 6 At the same time as the means of access is constructed across the existing roadside drainage channel, a piped culvert having a diameter not less than 0.3 metre, shall be installed at the level of the channel to maintain water flow to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Such provision shall be retained throughout the life of the development. Reason In order to prevent flooding onto the highway in the interests of road safety.

Condition 7 At any time throughout the life of the development to which this permission relates, any gate which may be installed across the vehicular access shall be set back a minimum of 7.5 metres from the edge of the public highway. Reason To enable vehicles entering the site to pull off the public highway whilst the gate is being opened.

Condition 8 Any operations on the site to which this planning permission relates shall, throughout the life of the development, only take place between the hours of 08.00 – 19.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays and no working on Sundays. Reason In order to protect the occupants of nearby premises from nuisance caused by noise and disturbance.

Condition 9 Should any complaints be received during construction in respect of noise levels, the developer shall, if requested by the Planning Authority, fully investigate these complaints and shall undertake noise monitoring to establish noise levels at any affected property. This shall be carried out by a suitably qualified noise expert or consultant previously agreed in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority and shall be carried out in accordance with BS7445:2003, BS4142:2014 and PAN 1:2011. Reason To protect the amenity at noise sensitive premises.

Condition 10 Should any noise monitoring undertaken in accordance with Condition 9 above demonstrate that the noise thresholds are being exceeded, the developer shall submit a scheme of mitigating measures to the Comhairle as Planning Authority for written agreement within one month of the breach being identified. The agreed mitigating measures shall be implemented within one month of the written agreement or within any alternative timescale agreed in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority and thereafter retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises.

Condition 11 No part of the development to which this planning permission relates shall commence until details of measures to be followed for the suppression of dust during construction of any part of the development have been submitted to and approved by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The approved measures shall then be implemented before development starts and shall be retained throughout construction to the satisfaction of the Comhairle. Should any complaints be received in respect of dust, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints to establish dust levels at any affected property. Reason To protect the amenity at dust sensitive premises.

Condition 12 A scheme for the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. No part of the development to which this planning permission relates shall commence until the Comhairle has issued approval of the scheme in writing. Reason In order to secure the satisfactory development of the site in the interests of the visual amenity.

Condition 13 The scheme of landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme submitted and approved to comply with Condition 12 above. All of the work relating to the approved scheme shall be completed no later than in the first planting season following the first use or completion (whichever is the sooner) of the development approved by this planning permission unless an alternative phasing for implementing the scheme has been approved in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority before the development starts in which case the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved phasing. The approved landscaping scheme shall then be retained throughout the life of the development. Reason In order to ensure the implementation of the approved landscaping in the interests of the amenity of the area.

Condition 14 Prior to the commencement of development, a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority for approval. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the offices, workshop and store and shall be retained throughout the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure satisfactory drainage of the land.

Condition 15 Prior to the commencement of development a plan identifying how the waste management provision with the site will be dealt with, shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall then be implemented and retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure the satisfactory management of waste within the site.

Condition 16 Despite the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent similar Order), foul drainage shall be to the public sewerage system and at no time throughout the life of the development shall it be connected to a private system (septic tank, cesspool etc). Reason To comply with the requirements of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and because drainage to the public system is in the best interests of public health.

Condition 17 No later than one month prior to commencement of the Development, the Developer shall agree a date with Technical Services (Roads), Comhairle nan Eilean Siar for a pre-development condition survey of Simon’s Road between the junction of Mossend/ Anderson Road and the application site. The pre- development condition survey shall then be undertaken on the agreed date and prior to the commencement of the development an agreed record of the survey shall be submitted to the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason To establish the condition of the road along the construction haul route prior to development commencing.

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5