Public Document Pack Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid
Corporate Services Director: Nigel Stewart
Dalriada House, Lochnell Street, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8ST Tel: 01546 602177 Fax: 01546 604530
30 November 2004
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY on WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2004 at 10:00 AM, which you are requested to attend.
Nigel Stewart Director of Corporate Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 2 NOVEMBER 2004 (Pages 1 - 6)
4. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 3 NOVEMBER 2004 (Pages 7 - 14)
5. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 3 NOVEMBER 2004 (PENINVER) (Pages 15 - 18)
6. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 25 NOVEMBER 2004 (Pages 19 - 20)
7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
8. PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Pages 21 - 112)
9. DELEGATED DECISIONS (Pages 113 - 130)
10. UPDATE STRATEGIC AND AREA PLAN (Pages 131 - 160)
11. RING AND RIDE KINTYRE (TO FOLLOW)
12. PAPER AND CARDBOARD RECYCLING SCHEME - MID ARGYLL (Pages 161 - 164)
13. COMMUNITY DEVELOPED PLAY SPACE, KINLOCH GREEN, CAMPBELTOWN (Pages 165 - 166)
14. THE POST OFFICE DIRECTLY MANAGED NETWORK (Pages 167 - 168)
15. MINUTES OF KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP DATED 18 OCTOBER 2004 (Pages 169 - 174)
16. SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS 2005/06 (Pages 175 - 182)
17. COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT (Pages 183 - 184)
18. SCOTTISH SERIES (Pages 185 - 186)
EXEMPT SECTION The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The appropriate paragraph is:-
Paragraph 9 Any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services.
E1 19. KILCHOMAN CHURCH (TO FOLLOW)
RGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay (Vice-Chair) Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor John McAlpineCouncillor Alastair McKinlay (Chair) Councillor Bruce Robertson
Contact: DEIRDRE FORSYTH
Page 1 Agenda Item 3
MINUTE OF MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE BUSINESS DAY held on TUESDAY 2nd NOVEMBER 2004 AT 2.30pm in COUNCIL CHAMBERS , KILMORY
Present: Councillor Alistair McKinlay (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor John Findlay Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donnie MacMillan Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Bruce Robertson Councillor Robin Currie
In Attendance: Nigel Stewart, Director of Corporate Services Andy Law, Director of Operational Services Richard Kerr, Senior Development Control Officer Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Donnie McLeod, Roads and Amenity Services Manager Traffic Inspector David Sutherland, Strathclyde Police John McFadzean, BEAR
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kelly.
2. PLANNING ISSUES
Richard Kerr asked if the Area Committee would agree to a special application for Fyne Homes for 18 houses on Gigha. He explained the reasons for the requirement for the special meeting. The Committee agreed to hold a special meeting in the Council Chambers, Kilmory at 10.00 a.m. on the 25th November, 2004, to be followed by the Pre-Agenda.
3. BEAR ISSUES
The Councillors raised the following problems:
(a) Councillor Robertson pointed out that there were a lot of crashes south of Ardrishaig at Inverneil. Photographs have been taken by residents. A letter had been sent to Mr MacKenzie of BEAR but no reply had been received.
(b) John McFadzean said that he would find out why no reply had been received and follow this up.
He also advised that a study of the whole route has been carried out and the Scottish Executive have instructed BEAR to proceed with an accident reduction plan for the A83.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\2\0\AI00020023\BusinessDayMinute2November20040.doc Page 1 of 6 Page 2
Phase 1 from Lochgilphead to Kennacraig and Phase 2 from Lochgilphead to Minard in the north with all bends to be investigated and the provision of verge markers, signage and anti-skid marks. Phase 1 should progress in November and all of the work should be completed by the end of the financial year.
Councillor McKinlay referred to 11 accidents in the stretch at Inverneill and asked if there was any reason for this. John McFadzean said that he would get details of the report and send it out for the Committee to look at. It was suggested that it would be wise to consult the local authority before commencing the improvement works. Inspector Sutherland said that he was also involved in the project.
Councillor McAlpine asked how much would be spent on Phase 1 and John McFadzean advised that he would pass this information back to the Committee.
(c) Councillor MacMillan said that he had not seen the roads so bad before and thought that there was a lot of work to be caught up with. John McFadzean said there were various areas for resurfacing inlaying which had been marked out, although the Members commented that they had been marked out for more than a year but John said that they should all be completed during this financial year.
(d) He was asked about overtime and said that he would investigate the reasons for overtime working and Andy Law will be doing the same for the roads department. Although £5 million additional funding is available for the northwest sector of BEAR maybe only 20% will be spent on the Argyll and Bute roads.
(e) Councillor Hay said that since BEAR had succeeded in winning the contract it was up to them to carryout necessary work.
She explained that the pavements in Inveraray were to be reslabed. Some slabs were replaced and then BEAR vans parked on those very slabs and broke them. She thought the footpaths should just be tarmac. She was concerned about potholes in Inveraray and Minard, the narrows in Minard which required to be improved and work to be done at Auchindrain. She was particularly concerned about the single track narrows at Minard and the improvement of this part of the road. The suggestion is that the road would have to be closed overnight. She was particularly anxious to see the detail of the proposals before the work is carried out and it was agreed that this would be provided to the Committee.
Councillor Hay then referred to specific problems on this stretch of road which relate to the requirement to take out and replace the drains and John McFadzean said he had taken note of those points and would come back with a response.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\2\0\AI00020023\BusinessDayMinute2November20040.doc Page 2 of 6 Page 3
(f) Councillor McAlpine raised the issue about traffic calming in Tarbert and at the crossing in the middle of the village. He asked that it be looked at.
Inspector Sutherland said the police did support some form of crossing but it was difficult to see what the solution would be. Traffic lights recently put in by Scottish Water on a temporary basis assisted the crossing of the road by pedestrians to cross at this point. A study was done and there has been a lot of correspondence between the Scottish Executive and the Community Council. John McFadzean said he would take this up with the Scottish Executive and see whether a further solution could be achieved.
Inspector Sutherland said common sense says that we should act in a preventative matter and we do need to have a resolution to the Tarbert crossing.
(g) Councillor Hay asked if a solution was found would that be treated as a bid to the Scottish Executive. She said that local Members are kept out of the loop. They get complaints but they are not involved in the consultation and the decision about the solutions.
Councillor Currie considered that things happen in Highland Council area because the Council works together with BEAR and Scottish Executive with major campaigns for improvement. He suggested there should be more regular meetings between the Council, BEAR and the Scottish Executive to try and raise the profile of the A83 and to bring in Members as well as officers.
Andy Law pointed out that the roads have had no real expenditure on them since 1994 according to the recent Audit Scotland report.
Nigel Stewart said that there are three levels (a) accident designs, (b) resurfacing road and (c) reconstructing roads and making improvements. He pointed out that there was a company in Campbeltown which makes wind turbines and which may have problems regarding future production because of the difficulty in moving them by road. There are four pinch points between Kennacraig and Loch Lomondside. The bridge at the canal at Ardrishaig, the narrows at Minard which is probably acceptable because it is on a straight, Inveraray bridge, and the railway bridge over the road between Arrochar and Tarbet. These are all matters which require to be assessed and improved on a strategic level.
Inspector Sutherland said that since the Council structure had changed there was no transport committee which had been a healthy forum. He had meetings with the Transport spokesperson but these discussions did not seem to involve the Council as a whole. Roads and transportation are quality of life issues in Argyll and Bute.
It was noted that there would be a presentation from Strathclyde Police to the Council in December and this would be done 2 or 3 times a year to try to apply a more strategic role.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\2\0\AI00020023\BusinessDayMinute2November20040.doc Page 3 of 6 Page 4
It was suggested that in future the Area Committee should also be involved and the Scottish Executive should be there when BEAR and the Police are dicussing roads matter.
Discussion followed about how this liaison arrangement could take place and it was agreed that Andy Law would speak to the transport spokesperson and come back to the Area Committee after speaking also to BEAR, the Police and Scottish Executive with proposals for a liaison arrangement which would be satisfactory. This needs to be at a strategic level, higher than the Network Manager in Scottish Executive.
On being asked why there was so little feed back to these meetings John McFadzean said the state of the A83 has been taken up with the Scottish Executive but it takes time for them to agree for matters to be done.
(h) Councillor McAlpine suggested that the village of Clachan needs a speed limit and Inspector Sutherland said he would carry out a covert speed survey and discuss this with area Police officers to see what the solution might be.
(i) Councillor Hay said that the good news was that the 40mph speed limit in Lochgair was satisfactory.
(j) There was a question about why roads were blocked when there has been a serious crash.
Inspector Sutherland said the roads were not kept shut for longer than necessary. Every road death is treated as a suspicious death and a through investigation of the scene cannot be disturbed by passing traffic. The problem in Argyll and Bute is that there are not a lot of alternative routes.
A question was raised about forestry roads and Donnie McLeod said that single track convoy could be provided but there were management issues and risk assessments which require to be done.
(k) There was a discussion about the temporary speed signs on trailers which a lot of Members thought would be a useful exercise.
Inspector Sutherland will look at this to see where and how it could be done in the most effective way.
(l) Various questions were raised about speeding locally and Inspector Sutherland said that these would be dealt with and that also the public be encouraged to report any speeding cars which they see.
(m) Cycling on the pavements.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\2\0\AI00020023\BusinessDayMinute2November20040.doc Page 4 of 6 Page 5
Inspector Sutherland said that although this had been covered by the Burgh Police Scotland Act 1892 it was not in the Civic Government Scotland Act which replaced it, so they have to prove that cyclists are careless. Part of the reason is that there are so few cycle paths.
Mr McFadzean and Inspector Sutherland were thanked for attending the business day and it was hoped that as a result of this useful discussion that further links of an improved nature could take place.
4. COUNCIL ROAD ISSUES
Members felt confused about how Operational Services works. Donnie McLeod said it would take about 12 months for the system to be bedded down.
Donnie McLeod also explained that more work is required to keep on the men required for winter maintenance than we can get from the Council, but when more work is received then sometimes that can also distort the balance of keeping the whole squad busy all of the time.
Councillor Hay said that it was the silly little things that are not getting done and it was helpful if she could be advised that a piece of work has been allocated to a specific person. She was concerned that Community Councils were advised that work would be done and then it isn’t. She wanted to know how money was allocated to local areas for these minor matters.
Andy Law said that he would investigate how to ensure that matters that Members reported were dealt with and to give feedback to Councillors. The staff need to communicate with the Members over all of these smaller matters.
Councillor McAlpine said that there should 3 answers to a request for assistance; 1) no,no budget, 2) yes, but not immediately and 3) yes, within the next 2 weeks. He said that when you go back and report on whichever response this is to the Community Council and nothing gets done the Councillors are the ones who have given broken promises to the community.
He had been told that there would have been a ‘20’s plenty’ sign at Tarbert school and so advised the school board that this would be done at the end of September but the work has still not been carried out; the same with drainage to the field and the play areas and there were also issues about the collection of rubbish.
Councillor Hay said do we have to report everything in writing. Andy Law said that you shouldn’t have to do that and he would check on how the feedback to Councillors was being dealt with.
A point was made that when decisions are taken by the Area Committee they were not always followed up and there was a brief discussion about car parking.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\2\0\AI00020023\BusinessDayMinute2November20040.doc Page 5 of 6 Page 6
Andy Law was thanked for his attendance at the meeting.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\2\0\AI00020023\BusinessDayMinute2November20040.doc Page 6 of 6 Page 7 Agenda Item 4
MINUTES of MEETING of MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE held in the TOWN HALL, CAMPBELTOWN on WEDNESDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2004
Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay(Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Donnie MacMillan Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Bruce Robertson
Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Development Control Officer Donnie McLeod, Roads and Amenity Services Manager Bill Geddes, Statutory Plans Manager Yvonne Willan, Area Housing Manager Felicity Kelly, Community Education Inspector David Sutherland, Strathclyde Police
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies for absence.
2. URGENT ITEM
The Chairman ruled, and the Committee agreed, in terms of Section 50B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 in terms of Standing Order 3.2.2, that item 18, a report from GRAB Trust on the Seaside Awards Status granted to Machrihanish Beach, which was not specified in the Agenda, should be considered in view of the need for the local people in Campbeltown to be given this information at the earliest possible opportunity.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Hay declared an interest in Item 18 the report from the GRAB Trust and Councillor Colville declared an interest in respect of Item 17 the Windfarm Trust in view of his Chairmanship of Alienergy.
4. MINUTES
(a) MINUTES OF MEETING OF 8 SEPTEMBER 2004
The minutes of the meeting of 8 September 2004 were approved.
(b) MINUTES OF MEETING OF 6 OCTOBER 2004
The minutes of the meeting of 6 October 2004 were approved.
Item 3c British telecom consultation. Page 8
As arising from consideration of this item it was reported that responses from Community Councils had been passed to British Telecom prior to the extended consultation date of 22 October 2004 on behalf of the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Area Committee.
(c) MINUTES OF INFORMAL HEARING DATED 20 OCTOBER 2004
The minutes of the informal hearing dated 20 October 2004 were approved.
5. MEMBERS CONTACTS
A list of contact persons for Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Councillors was circulated.
Decision
1. It was Noted that under Community Service, Yvonne Williams should read Yvonne Willan.
2. It was noted that for local Roads and Amenity purposes, Islay Councillors should contact Dave Ferrier, Kintyre Councillors should contact Ian Fawcett and Mid Argyll Councillors should contact Stewart Clark.
3. It was agreed that all of those on the list should advised that Members will regard them as the contact persons and they would be expected to reply directly to Members.
4. Concerns were raised that sometimes the named person and the deputy are both on holiday at the same time and it was agreed that this would be raised as an issue with the Directors.
5. It was agreed to ask Angus Smith for an update on Social Work Services in the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay area for the next meeting and particularly with reference to supporting people and occupational therapy service.
6. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Willie Durance of Campbeltown Community Council asked what work was being carried out on Main Street because he had understood that any proposals would be discussed with the Community Council prior to commencement.
Donnie McLeod advised that a crossing point with lights was being put in place and this was in response to requests from the local Members and the Community Council.
Willie Durance advised that he was happy to know that it was a crossing that was being installed.
7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered and dealt with the applications for planning permission as detailed below.
1. 04/00057/OUT Page 9
Alma Leisure Ltd. Outline. Residential and commercial development, Craobh Haven.
Councillors MacMillan, McAlpine and Currie took no part in the decision making process in regard to this item because they had not been present at the hearing on 20 October 2004.
Decision
That the amended layout be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the original report, and with the rewording of condition 8 as follows, in order to allow some flexibility in the precise positioning of the emergency access on the internal loop road, as discussed at the informal hearing; subject to the drawing numbers referred to in the suggested conditions being updated to reflect the amended drawing numbers.
8. The internal road system shall be constructed to Roads Authority adoption standards and shall be a road over which the public has a right of access in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The distributor road shall compose a 5.5m wide carriageway with a footway along one side. The road system shall be laid out in accordance with the layout details indicated, or any subsequent amendments thereto agreed in advance in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Area Roads Manager. An emergency access designed to inhibit the continuous circulation of traffic round the development site, along with appropriate turning facilities for vehicles, shall be implemented in a location to be agreed, in accordance with a detailed design to be approved in writing in advance by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Area Roads Manager.
2. 04/00795/DET Mr Neil S. Henderson. Detailed. Erection of Three Detached Dwellinghouses and One Boathouse, Cairndhu, Cairnbaan.
Decision
That planning permission be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the development plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reasons and the conditions and reasons contained in the report by head of Planning dated 18 October 2004.
8. DELEGATED DECISIONS
The Committee noted the decisions issued by the Director of Development Services dated 13 October 2004.
9. MAJOR TRANSPORT ISSUES
A list of major transport projects was submitted for discussion by Members.
Decision
1. It was agreed that Campbeltown promenade was an important Capital project for the Council but was not a major transport project. It was agreed to request Page 10
inclusion of Campbeltown promenade improvements in the Capital programme.
2. It was agreed to include improvements to the A83 as a major transport project on the list.
3. It was agreed to include rail link from Dalmally via Inveraray to Lochgilphead as a major transport project.
4. It was agreed that this list would be passed to the Policy Development Group on Transport for consideration.
5. It was agreed that a discussion on the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Strategic Priorities would be put on the agenda for the December meeting.
10. JOINT REPORT FROM ROADS AND AMENITY SERVICES MANAGER AND STRATHCLYDE POLICE
Traffic Inspector David Sutherland reported on crashes in the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay area. There has been an overall reduction of casualties from 2004 after a higher rate in 2003. He also gave some information on specific sites such as the one at Craobh Haven, but it appeared from his report that many are not reported because the members referred to at the last meeting do not show up in the statistics.
He advised that he is working with BEAR on the accident prevention plan for A83 and this should help some of these particular spots.
Various issues were raised by Members, including slippery roads, number of cars following a slow moving vehicle or a commercial vehicle and the campaigns proposed for the next few months.
The issue of vegetation growth and signage has also been raised by Inspector Sutherland with BEAR.
11. SOCIAL INCLUSION PARTNERSHIP
Felicity Kelly provided information on the proposals for the Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP). She advised that there would now only be 4 within the whole of Argyll and Bute, one of which would be in the was Dalintober/Millknowe area of Campbeltown with additional areas including Main Street and Longrow.
80% of the funding will be used in these 4 areas and the remaining 20% will be used thematically to assist economically inactive and people of low income, vulnerable families and children, young people and older people.
Transitional funding will apply to Soroba which has now been dropped as a SIP area until March 2006 and the Better Neighbourhood Services fund will also continue until March 2006. However, Community Development will continue to support the areas which were recognised by the Community Planning Partnership as the most deprived communities, including Islay South and East Kintyre.
Decision
Felicity was thanked for her report which was of interest to the Members and agreed that Page 11
further reports would be provided at appropriate times.
12. MINUTES OF KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP DATED 23 AUGUST 2004
There was submitted and noted minutes of Islay and Jura Liaison Group dated 23 August 2004.
13. MINUTES OF MID ARGYLL PARTNERSHIP DATED 14 SEPTEMBER 2004
The minutes of the Mid Argyll Partnership dated 14 September 2004 were noted.
As arising therefrom, Councillor Hay advised that she was keen that officers attended these meetings which are part of the decentralisation process approved by the Council.
Decision
It was agreed that officers should attend the meetings to discuss matters of strategic importance, and that members of the public and members of the groups should be reminded to get in touch directly with officers for minor issues to be attended to quickly.
14. ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL PLAN - REPORT ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED DURING CONSULTATION PROCESS
This report identified the main general and localised issues that arose following the publication of the Consultative Draft Local Plan and set out the next key milestone for the production of the Local Plan.
Decision
1. The Committee noted both the general and localised issues raised by the Consultative Draft Local Plan and the proposed response from the Policy Unit to enable the preparation of the Finalised Draft Local Plan.
2. The Committee noted the next key milestones in the production of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.
3. The Committee noted that officers will be going out to meet members and the public during the course of the next few months.
(Reference – Report by Head of Planning Services dated 3 November 2004)
15. OFCOM - EFFECT OF TETRA MASTS ON TELEVISION RECEPTION
A letter from Ofcom was received in regard to the various points raised by the Area Committee in their September meeting.
Decision
It was agreed to refer this letter along with previous correspondence to the Council in order that it can be dealt with on an Argyll wide basis.
16. LOW ASKOMIL, CAMPBELTOWN
Page 12
A report regarding issues about the name of the street commonly known as Low Askomil was discussed.
Decision
1. The Committee agreed that letters should be sent to all residents of both Low Askomil and High Askomil advising them of the situation and seeking their views on whether it was necessary for the name of the streets to be changed formally or whether it would be sufficient to confirm the names which have been agreed over many years.
2. Further information should be sought from the Archivist to find out the historical basis for the names and any changes which may have taken place informally.
(Reference – Report by Area Corporate Services Manager dated 3 November 2004)
17. WINDFARM TRUST
A report describing new renewable projects coming to the area and the basis of the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Windfarm Trusts existence was discussed.
Decision
1. It was agreed to change the name of the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Windfarm Trust to the Argyll and Bute Windfarm and Renewables Trust.
2. It was agreed to ask for a further report on proposed wording to enable future windfarm funding to be given to those communities whose areas are affected visually by windfarms (a) in order that the Committee could decide whether or not they wish to make these amendments and (b) to enable grants to be given outwith the Windfarm Trust area if it could be demonstrated that this was for the benefit of residents who lived within the area.
3. It was agreed to confirm to East and West Kintyre Community Councils that it is possible for them to support projects which are also supported by the Council.
(Reference – Report by Area Corporate Services Manager dated 3 November 2004)
18. GRAB
A letter from the GRAB Trust regarding the Machrihanish Beach was circulated and the quality of water information was discussed.
Decision
It was agreed to express pleasure that Machrihanish Beach has been awarded Seaside Award Status and to commend appropriate publicity for this beach.
(Reference – Report by GRAB TRUST dated 17 September, 2004) )
19. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Nancie Smith, Chair of Campbeltown Community Council, asked a question about the requirement to separate surface water from sewage. She had been advised by Scottish Page 13
Water that this was the Council’s responsibility.
Decision
She was advised that the surface water within the current sewage system is the responsibility of Scottish Water and that there are ongoing discussions between Scottish Water and Argyll and Bute Council to resolve this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank Page 15 Agenda Item 5
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MINUTE of MEETING OF AREA COMMITTEE FOR MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY SITE INSPECTION, PENINVER held on WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER, 2004
Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Bruce Robertson Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Donnie MacMillan
Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Planning Officer
The Mr M MacCallum Applicant
Supporters Mrs Liz Perkins on behalf of the Supporters
Objectors Mr Gordon Fuller on behalf of the Objectors
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Councillor Kelly.
2. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
04/01520/VARCON Messrs. E. MacCallum Variation of Condition Removal or modification of Condition 2 attached to planning permission 185/81, to enable caravans to be located on the site throughout the year. Peninver Sands Holiday Park (North), Peninver, by Campbeltown
The Chairman introduced all those present and explained the procedure. Richard Kerr then proceeded to give the reasons for his recommendation of approval of the removal of the condition as detailed in the report dated 17 September, 2004.
3. APPLICANT
The applicant, Mr MacCallum then explained his reasons for the application. First of all he circulated a copy of the caravan site licence which had been received from Environmental Health and which relates to permission to site the residential caravans for 10 months of the year,
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\0\0\AI00020007\3November2004Peninver0.doc Page 16
and which gave rise to the need to apply for the removal of this planning condition. He stated that the provision of additional bed lights would be a good input into the economy and suggested that the toilet block was also visually intrusive but it obviously was not required to be moved. He referred again to the fact that there was no other park in Scotland that anyone knew of where caravans had to be moved during the winter. He said that holiday season was now extended because people took holidays all year round and various development proposals like the re-introduction of the Irish ferry also suggest that additional accommodation venues would be required throughout the year. He is willing to put in low level of screening at ground and floor level to each of the individual caravan sites and will comply with any conditions imposed by the Committee.
4. SUPPORTERS
Mrs Perkins said that she was here on behalf of all the supporters of the application including her own parents who own number 11. She didn’t think that the caravans impinged on the privacy of local residents since the caravans are 40m from the houses and face the shore lines, and pointed out that the lack of a view was not a planning consideration. The site has been there for 40 years, long before the houses were built and for the first number of years they were there all year round. She was surprised that it was suggested that if it was alright to have them in summer when the worst visual impact applied then it seemed illogical to suggest that when there was little visual impact in winter that they should be removed. In any case when they were removed there was still 7,000 square feet of bare concrete and roads and the toilet block. The caravans can withstand weather and it is inconvenient and expensive to move them and also they are not insured when they are stacked up. She advised that the residents do shop locally and they attend local functions and socialise locally, and would spend more time here if they could.
5. OBJECTORS
Mr Fuller went back to the history of the imposition of the condition. He said that in 1981 the applicant at that time applied for 10 touring pitches and agreed to remove the caravans in the winter in order to persuade the Committee to agree to these 10 touring pitches. He suggested that if the condition was removed now then the 10 touring pitches should also be disallowed. He said that a lot of the comments by the Planner were personal opinions. He suggested that some of the letters in support should be disregarded for various different reasons, and also that the caravan owners have been subject to a three line whip. He asked why there had been no touring caravans during the 30 week summer season and thought that this was a wasted opportunity and that the tourism on the south site should be developed further. He then asked why the site licence only allows for a 10 month season. He pointed out that only two of the caravans have double glazing and central heating and of these two neither of these owners submitted a letter of support. He commented that caravans were being moved
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\0\0\AI00020007\3November2004Peninver0.doc Page 17
around the site, and from the site, all the time and this didn’t seem to affect their longevity. He said that he did not think that the stored caravans would have an adverse impact because they are out of sight of the village and that the Committee should give a verdict according to the evidence.
6. QUESTIONS
Questions were then put by members.
Councillor Hay asked about moving to a another site. Mr MacCallum said they were moved as and when necessary and there could be three or five or maybe no movements in the season depends on upgrading by owners.
Councillor Currie asked about the relationship of the licence on the planning permission. Mr Kerr advised that the licence was amended in error and thereafter the owner applied for the longer occupation of 10 months which had been varied in ignorance of the condition in the planning permission which should have taken precedence. The site licence would not be given for 12 months because it is not a permanent residential site.
Councillor Colville asked if the storage of caravans could be on the north site and Richard Kerr said there was no reason why not as there was nothing in the planning permission to stop the storage of the caravans on the north site. The applicant said that if the whole crux of the argument was visual amenity there would be no point in him storing the caravans on the north site although he could do so.
Councillor Currie asked what the difference was between 5 months occupation or 2 months occupation and Richard Kerr said that it was a distinction between holiday occupation and permanent and 3 months was seen to be a reasonable maximum period of time to stay at one period although intermittent occupation of longer than that would be allowed as long as it was not more than 3 months at one time.
Councillor Findlay asked if they were secured in one block were they safer than where they are now. The applicant said no they were not because they were held down by chains in their individual plots but there was no way of anchoring them in their storage position.
7. SUM UP
Richard Kerr advised that in regard to the original consent, the condition was in respect of the additional touring caravans and it was reasonable for the touring caravans to be removed but the condition went further by requiring the removal of the static caravans and the only reason must be a concession made by the owner at the time. The Committee may have thought that this would be an environmental gain but it was not unilaterally imposed by the Council. Static caravans are not the same as touring caravans. He emphasised that the crux of the
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\0\0\AI00020007\3November2004Peninver0.doc Page 18
argument was is it a reasonable condition or not to ask them to be taken off site and stored elsewhere. It is implicit in the planning permission that they are acceptable for 8 months so why not for the other 4 months. Planners take the view that it is an onerous condition. He then said that the reason the caravans were not removed on the 1st November this year was because the application had been made in time for it to be concluded in October but the Committee had decided to come to inspect the site, and it would have been unreasonable to remove them so that the Committee could not see what they looked like for the hearing today. If permission were to be refused enforcement would be considered but if the applicant appealed the Reporter would also wish to come and see the site and they would have to remain there until after that.
Mrs Perkins, on behalf of the supporters, said that there was no three line whip and she pointed out that three of the letters of objections were copies of each other. She particularly asked the Committee to agree with the Planners recommendation as the caravans are uninsurable when stored.
Mr Fuller asked the Committee to look at the south site but was advised that it was only the north site that was under consideration for the planning application. He explained that the caravans are stored under the hill and are shielded from storms as are those already in situ and again asked that the original agreement be considered.
Mr MacCallum, the applicant, summed up by saying that he too was a resident in the village and it was the visual amenity of the village not the views of the owners that was important. He asked that the new conditions be agreed to and pointed out that it would have minimal additional effect on the coast line with a good benefit in sustainable year round destination. He pointed out that the people who owned the caravans haven’t put central heating in them because they are not used in winter but they are likely to improve them if it was granted. If the application is refused he would ask for clear planning reasons for the refusal.
8. DECISION
(a) The application was approved subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report dated 17 September, 2004.
(b) This decision was taken on the basis that the applicant would carry out planting, land scaping and other improvements including the provision of a single gas supply to the site.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\0\0\AI00020007\3November2004Peninver0.doc Page 19 Agenda Item 6
MINUTES of MEETING of MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY on THURSDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2004
Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay(Chair)
Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay Councillor Donnie MacMillan Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Bruce Robertson
Attending: George McKenzie, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Development Control Officer Martin Gannon, Roads and Amenity Services Manager Gary Wilson, Building Control Manager
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hay, Colville and Kelly.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. PLANNING APPLICATION
The Committee considered and dealt with the application for planning permission as detailed below.
1. 04/01466/DET Fyne Homes Ltd. Detailed Planning Permission. Erection of 18 dwellinghouses, associated access, drainage, play area and footpath, Land adjacent to Gigha Hotel, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha.
Decision
The Committee approved the application subject to the conditions contained in the reports by the Head of Planning dated 28 October and 24 November 2004.
Page 20
EXEMPT SECTION
The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, to exclude the public from the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
4. KILCHOMAN CHURCH
The Members heard a verbal report on this property from the Building Control Manager.
Decision
The Committee agreed that a report be submitted to the next Area Committee from Legal and Protective Services on the recovery of costs incurred to the Council.
Page 21 Agenda Item 8
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING ON 8 DECEMBER, 2004
1. 04/00822/OUT Mr and Mrs N Duncan. Outline. Two dwellings. Land at Barmore Road, Tarbert.
Recommendation
That the application be granted subject to the standard outline time limit conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 15 November 2004.
2. 04/01180/OUT Mrs Fiona Wylie. Outline. Erection of a Dwellinghouse. Land to North-East of Traighuaine, Arduaine.
Recommendation
That the application be granted subject to the standard outline conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 22 November 2004.
3. 04/01193/OUT Mrs. Fiona Wylie. Outline. Erection of a Dwellinghouse. Land to East of Traighuaine, Arduaine.
Recommendation
That the application be granted subject to the standard outline conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 22 November 2004.
4. 04/01219/DET Scottish Water Solutions. Detailed. Construction of a waste water treatment facility, access, lay-by, control kiosk and formation of a slipway. Foreshore adjoining ‘Lochside’, Lochgair.
Recommendation
That the application be granted subject to:
i) an informal hearing being held prior to the determination of the application, in view of the number of representations received from third parties;
ii) the standard time limit condition and reason, and the conditions and reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 20th September, 2004.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\7\3\AI00015377\PlanningList08December20040.doc Page 22
5. 04/01309/DET T & W Wood. Detailed Planning Permission. Erection of two single storey dwellinghouses, garages, septic tank, formation of new access and agricultural access to classified road. Land East of Coultorsay, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted as a ‘minor departure’ to the Development Plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 19 November 2004.
6. 04/01330/OUT Mr & Mrs J. Brolly. Outline. Erection of dwelling. Plot 8, Torran Farm, Ford.
Recommendation
That permission be refused for the reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 19th November, 2004.
7. 04/01335/OUT Mr & Mrs J. Brolly. Outline. Erection of dwelling. Plot 7, Torran Farm, Ford.
Recommendation
That application be refused for the reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 19th November, 2004.
8. 04/01336/OUT Mr & Mrs Brolly. Outline. Erection of dwelling. Plot 6, Torran Farm, Ford.
Recommendation
That the application be refused for the reasons contained in the report by Head of Planning dated 19th November, 2004.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\7\3\AI00015377\PlanningList08December20040.doc Page 23
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor John McAlpine PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 5.5.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 8.12.04
Reference Number: 04/00822/OUT Applicants Name: Mr and Mrs N Duncan Application Type: Outline Application Description: Two dwellings Location: Land at Barmore Road, Tarbert
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of two detached dwellings; • Formation of shared access to a classified road;
(ii) Other Aspects of the Development:
• Connection to public water main and public sewer.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the standard outline time limit conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This application site comprises a vacant area of sloping ground with a frontage to Barmore Road, and backing onto property at the rear at a lower level off Garvel Road. The site is situated to the north of Tarbert Fire Station on land in the Tarbert Conservation Area. The proposal is to construct two detached dwellings served by a single access point off the trunk road.
As the applicant intends to sell the plots, it is not appropriate that he should be required to submit detailed designs for each dwelling at this stage if this can be avoided by the imposition of conditions which would satisfactorily safeguard the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this case, it will be important to ensure that the dwellings should be designed to be typical of the ‘Tarbert Villa’ style, that their respective ridge heights should differ from one another, and that they are comparable to the ad hoc arrangement of tall ridge heights in the locality. It is also important to the character of the area that each of the two properties differ from one another in their appearance and details of design. It is proposed to take access to the site from a single point off the A83(T) where the Trunk Roads Authority have confirmed that they are satisfied that the necessary visibility can be achieved, and where the safety of traffic will not be compromised. It is therefore recommended that any approval should be conditioned to require designs appropriate to their surroundings and with access arrangements as agreed with the Trunk Roads Authority.
There are no objections to the proposals from consultees. Three letters of objection and one of qualified support have been received from third parties.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 15th November 2004
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 24
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact officer: Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 25
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/00822/OUT
4. Any details pursuant to condition 1(a) above shall incorporate the following elements:-
(i) The dwellings, which shall differ in design from one another, shall at least be one and a half storeys in height, with ridge heights also differing from one another, but not exceeding in either case a height of 26.00m above OS Datum; (ii) The window openings shall have a strong vertical emphasis with a sash and case method of opening, or mock sash and case appearance; (iii) The roof surfaces and dormer cheeks shall be finished in dark grey natural slate; (iv) The walls shall be finished in either natural stone, or a recessive colour wet dash render to tone with the stone finish on buildings adjacent to the site, and in the event of the latter shall incorporate stone quoins; (v) Design detailing of items such as barge boards, eaves, verges, finials, lintels, cills, stringcourses and window/door margins shall reflect the design and architectural detailing of these features on the buildings in the vicinity within the Conservation Area; (vi) A pronounced roof form for each dwelling, comparable in architectural design, style, pitch and form to the neighbouring villas within the Conservation Area; (vii) A set back distance of each property from Barmore Road pavement of at least 4 metres; and (viii) Full details of the proposed location and design of any walls, fences and/or gates
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to reflect/retain the character and appearance of the Tarbert Conservation Area.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992, (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) nothing in Article 3 of or Schedule 1 to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area the subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 Classes 1, 2, 3, and in Part 2 Classes 7 and 9 of the aforementioned Schedule 1, as summarised below:
PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE Class 1: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Class 2: Any alteration including heightening/enlargement to the roof of a dwellinghouse. Class 3: The provision of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure.
PART 2: MINOR OPERATIONS Class 7: Gates, fences, walls and other means of enclosure. Class 9: Stone cleaning and exterior painting of any building. (Painting includes the application of colour)
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to protect this part of the Conservation Area from unsympathetic development normally carried out without planning permission.
6. The proposed access shall join the Trunk Road at a new junction which shall be constructed by the applicant to a standard as described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol. 6, TD 41/95 Layout 3. The access shall have a radii of 6 metres and shall be 5.5 metres wide for a distance of 6 metres back from the nearside edge of the Trunk Road carriageway. The junction shall be constructed in accordance with details that shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority, after consultation with the Trunk Roads Authority, before any part of the development is commenced.
Reason : To ensure that the standard of access layout complies with the current standards and that the safety of the traffic on the Trunk Road is not diminished.
7. The gradient of the access road shall not exceed 1 in 25 for a distance of 6 metres from the nearside edge of the Trunk Road carriageway. The first 6 metres shall be surfaced in a bituminous material and measures shall be adopted to ensure that all drainage from the site does not discharge onto the Trunk Road.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 26
Reason: To ensure that vehicles leaving the site can undertake the manoeuvre safely, to prevent any loose material from within the access entering onto the Trunk Road and to ensure that water run-off from the site does not enter the Trunk Road.
8. A visibility splay shall be provided and maintained by the applicant on each side of the proposed access to the satisfaction of the planning authority such that there shall be no obstruction to visibility from a driver’s eye height of 1.05m – 2.0m, positioned at the set back distance (X) on the proposed access, to an object height of 0.26m – 1.05m within the triangular areas defined below:
a. The set back distance, or X distance, shall be a line 2.4 metres long measured along the centreline of the access road from the nearside edge of the trunk road carriageway. b. The Y distance shall be a line 90 metres long, measured along the nearside edge of the Trunk Road carriageway from a centreline of the proposed access road in both directions. c. Two straight lines connecting the termination of the above lines.
Reason: To ensure that drivers of vehicles leaving the site are able to see and be seen by vehicles on the trunk Road carriageway and join the traffic stream safely
9. The details pursuant to condition 1(c) above shall include a turning area and parking provision for 2 cars within the curtilage of each of the two dwellinghouses. The duly approved details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the respective dwellinghouse.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9. Pursuant to condition 1(b) above the landscaping scheme, shall provide details of new planting proposals, any existing trees to be retained, and those trees or areas of trees to be removed. In terms of the new planting proposals, the further details shall specify the details of ground preparation, species, nursery stock size in terms of British Standards and density of planting and those areas to be of grass seed/turf. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in full within the first planting season following the substantial completion of the dwellings.
Reason: The development requires landscaping to fully integrate the proposal with its surroundings within this part of the Conservation Area in order to preserve the areas character.
10. The landscaping scheme to be approved under condition 9 above shall be maintained for a period of 10 years from the completion of the landscaping scheme and any losses for whatever reason during the maintenance period shall be replaced by the same size and species of plant/shrub/tree.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is provided with a satisfactory standard of landscaping over an extended period in the interests of visual amenity.
ADVICE NOTE RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/00822/DET:
Attention is drawn to the attached copy letter from Scottish Water dated 07.06.04.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 27
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/00822/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Kintyre Local Plan 1984 & First Review 1988
Policy HO 6A – Supports infill rounding off and redevelopment proposals in settlements including Tarbert.
Policy BE 3 – Within Tarbert Conservation Area the Council will not permit new development which would have a detrimental effect upon the character or appearance and setting of such areas.
'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003)
Policy STRAT DC 1 – supports development within settlement boundaries on appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites.
Policy E 8 – seeks to resist development which would adversely affect or undermine the historic environment and upon the key features of conservation areas.
Policy E10 – requires development design to be compatible with surroundings particularly in sensitive locations, including conservation areas.
Policy H1 – there will be a presumption in favour of housing development in settlements, other than where there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. .
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None relevant
(ii) Consultations
• Development Plans Unit (report dated 26.05.04) - the Kintyre Local Plan supports infill and rounding-off development on this site. The emerging new Local Plan equally supports the same, the site being within the Tarbert settlement boundary. That same plan places the area within Action Area 13/1 for improvements to the harbour. The development of this site for housing will not prejudice the further development and improvement of the area • Scottish Executive (Trunk Roads) – second response following receipt of revised access details (letter dated 16.08.04) – no objections subject to conditions regarding junction design, gradient of access within site, and visibility splay. • Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.- (letter dated 24.05.04) - no objections. • Scottish Water (letter dated 07.06.04) – no objections, provided there is a totally separate drainage system of foul and surface water sewers. Public Drainage and Public Water Supply is available in vicinity. • Tarbert and Skipness Community Council (letter dated 25.08.04) – no objections, with a comment to the effect that it should be noted that there is an on-going investigation into the safety of this part of the Trunk Road by BEAR, Strathcyde Police and the Scottish Executive due to the narrowness of the trunk road and the increasing volume of heavy vehicles using it.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised on site and in the local newspaper as development affecting a conservation area. The publicity period expired on 18.6.04. Three letters of objection have been received from Robert & Barbara Organ, ‘Netherlea’, Lady Ileene Road dated 11.05.04; William & Astrid Ronald, ‘Otterburn’, Barmore Road dated 08.06.04; and Mary MacNab, ‘Barfad Cottage’, Barmore Road, dated 10.06.04.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 28
The various concerns raised may be summarised as follows:
• The proposal places more stress on the A83 Trunk Road.
Comment: The Scottish Executive (Trunk Roads) initially recommended refusal of this application because of their concerns in relation to highway safety due to insufficient information having been supplied by the applicants. Following later details received relating to the precise position of what is to be a shared access, and the visibility achievable in relation to the rock-head present on the site, the Scottish Executive (Trunk Roads) are now satisfied that the highway aspects of the proposal are acceptable; subject to their specified conditions which will ensure that the details now specified in the scheme (6m radii, gradient of 1 in 25 for the first 6 m and visibility splay of 2.4 x 90m) are achieved.
• The public footpath adjacent to the A83 is narrow, adjoining a narrow trunk road, which causes dangerous problems for pedestrians especially when heavy vehicles travel, even speed past more than the 30mph limit, having to mount the pavement when one large vehicle has to pass another moving in the opposite direction. The current situation is dangerous and this development would pre-empt the possible widening of the footpath and road.
Comment: The Trunk Road is narrow and it has been witnessed that when two large vehicles pass one another in the vicinity of the site they only do so by the vehicle descending the hill into Tarbert mounting the pavement in a dangerous fashion. Nevertheless given this the Trunk Roads Authority is satisfied that the design and safety of the proposed site access is acceptable.
• The proposed access will cut through the only pavement on Barmore Road. Coupled with the comments above this leaves sub-standard refuge for the safety of pedestrians, especially children and the elderly. There are opposite the proposed access already 3 points of access to dwellings in the vicinity. Existing traffic on the trunk road has to queue northwards when cars are turning into Garvel Road; the existing fire station traffic lights also affect traffic movements; this new access would exacerbate the situation. The proposal is extremely dangerous – loss of life is feared.
Comment: As indicated above the Trunk Roads Authority have confirmed that they are satisfied with the access arrangements and that the safety of the trunk road will not be compromised as a result of the development.
• The southern plot, comprising of a rock slab a full head height above the road means the access to it will have to rise dramatically, and the parking areas for each plot will absorb much space within each plot.
Comment : Since a proposed shared access is to be provided at the northern limit of the southern plot; this coupled with the recommended conditions to be attached to any grant of planning permission, will ensure that acceptable access/parking arrangements can be achieved for two dwellings whilst still enabling the provision of an appropriate garden area.
• Since the plots are narrow, any useful building will have to be two storey, blocking the view of the pontoons from users of the pavement, and creating a canyon effect between the hill- side dwellings that already exist on the opposite landward side of the trunk road.
Comment : The two plots have a depth of 22m. The topography of the plots rises from the road and then drops significantly toward the direction of the harbour; and that these constraints will necessitate specifically designed house types for these plots. The recommended permission attaches an appropriate condition in terms of the ridge heights such that the character of the Conservation Area is respected. The recommended condition guards against bungalows which would be seriously out of character with the one and a half / two storey villa type character prevalent in the area. The claimed ‘canyon effect’ will not be of such magnitude that it would warrant the refusal of permission. Views of the harbour will only be prevented from the public pavement alongside each of the two buildings and not for the entire 95m frontage of the sites.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 29
One letter of support from has been received from Arthur McFarlane as Secretary of ‘Friends of Tarbert’ c/o ‘Mount Pleasant’, Lady Ileene Road, dated 06.07.04, in relation to the northern plot commenting as follows:
• We support the proposed dwelling on the northerly of the 2 plots as it would generally improve the appearance of the Conservation Area and have no adverse effect on the amenity of existing dwellings residences – but the access to the same should not be constructed immediately facing ‘Barfad Cottage’, the consequence of which would mean that property would suffer vehicle noise and light pollution.
This letter from ‘Friends of Tarbert’ is however cautionary in relation to the southern Plot. It comments:
• Given the dwellings nearby It doubts there is space to fit a dwelling on that plot which could enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.
Comment : There is little difference between the two plots. Carefully designed properties which respect the conditions recommended would contribute to the character of the Conservation Area.
C. ASSESSMENT
This is an outline application for two detached dwellings, off the A83(T)/Barmore Road, and above the rear of property on Garvel Road, within the Tarbert Conservation Area. Within conservation areas there is a statutory duty on planning authorities under section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 to have regard ‘to the desirability of preserving or enhancing conservation areas’ when considering development proposals within them. Advice to Planning Authorities is given in Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (1998). This notes that careful consideration as to whether detailed plans ought to be required in a particular case rather than giving permission in outline form.
Whilst the proposal is on an extensive parcel of land (some 95m x 22m) comparable to some of the plots within the Conservation Area, it nonetheless offers a plot size significantly greater than some of the smaller plots. However, it has to be recognised that the topography of the site gives rise to development constraints; there is rock head markedly above the height of the pavement on both plots (apart from the chosen position for the access), and the land falls dramatically toward the direction of the harbour after half the depth of the site is traversed. The consequence of this means the most likely position of both dwellings will be on the portion of each plot nearest to the trunk road, where they will have a floor slab level higher than the pavement.
The Trunk Roads Authority is satisfied that a central access point to serve both dwellings would be appropriate and could achieve the necessary visibility so as to not compromise the safety of traffic on the trunk road.
For the proposal to contribute to the character of the Conservation Area, particularly as the dwellings are viewed from across the harbour, it is important that they are designed to be typical of the ‘Tarbert Villa’, that their respective ridge heights differ from one another, and that they are comparable to the ad hoc arrangement of tall ridge heights in the locality. It is also important to the character of the area that each of the two properties differ from one another in design. The ridge heights of the neighbouring buildings vary from 24m to 27m above Ordnance Datum, and on this basis it is recommended that their ridge height above sea level should differ from one another but should not exceed 26m AOD.
Given that these matters can be reasonably achieved through conditions, I do not consider that it is necessary for full details of the design of the dwellings to be required at this stage, and that accordingly an outline consent for the principle of the development would be appropriate in this particular case.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0400822BARMOREROADTARBERT0.DOC
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank Page 31 Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank Page 33
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 18.06.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 03.11.04
Reference Number: 04/01180/OUT Applicants Name: Mrs. Fiona Wylie Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of a Dwellinghouse Location: Land to North-East of Traighuaine, Arduaine
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Outline Application for a Detached Dwellinghouse with details reserved for subsequent approval; • Shared foul drainage system with related application 04/01193/OUT for a further dwelling on an adjoining plot.
(ii) Other Aspects of the Development
• Utilisation of Existing Private Way; • Connection to a Private Water Supply.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the standard outline conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is one of two applications for outline planning permission for detached dwellings on adjacent plots. The sites are in an elevated location on the landward side of the A 816 at Arduaine, adjoining a loose cluster of four relatively modern dwellings. The development can be considered as a rounding off of this cluster and can be accepted as being consistent with adopted development plan policy in terms of Mid Argyll Local Plan Policies HO 13 and RUR 1 / 2, and both this application and the accompanying application for the adjoining site are being recommended for approval.
Five letters of objection have been received, both in terms of the principle of development and with regard to the perceived shortcomings of the water supply and foul drainage arrangements. The Head of Protective Services is satisfied that adequate water supply can be achieved subject to sufficient on- site storage being provided and subject to water treatment if necessary. Due to the fact that there are existing properties immediately below this site detailed consideration has been given at this outline planning stage as to the means by which foul drainage could be achieved without effluent being discharged onto neighbouring property. Both SEPA and the Council’s Head of Protective Services, along with the Council’s building control officers, have considered the options for draining these sites and have concluded that sustainable solutions are achievable, and that concerns over foul drainage arrangements would not warrant refusal of permission in principle.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 22.11.04
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 34
Author: Derek Hay Tel. 01546 - 604083 Contact Point: Richard Kerr Tel. 01546 - 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 35
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 04/01180/OUT
4. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall ensure that the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 and shall have visibility splays of 2.5 x 30 x 1.05 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access, which shall have bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the junction with the private way. Prior to work starting on site the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining private way and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reasons: In the interests of road safety.
5. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall ensure that the full details provide for a turning area and parking provision for 2 cars within the curtilage of the proposed dwellinghouse, drawn up in consultation with the Area Roads Manager. The parking and turning area shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwellinghouse.
Reasons: In the interests of road safety.
6. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall offer details of a foul drainage system designed to serve this and the neighbouring plot, which shall consist of a single biotank with a discharge into the burn, or such other system as may be agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the duly approved foul drainage system has been installed and is operational.
Reasons: In the interest of public health and amenity.
7. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall provide for the details of the proposed water supply and water storage arrangements as appropriately designed following consultation with the Councils’ Head of Protective Services. The dwelling shall not be first occupied until confirmation has been received in writing as to the adequacy of the quantity and quality of the proposed means of supply.
Reasons: In the interest of public health and amenity.
8. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall comprise a dwellinghouse which is:
i) finished in wet dash render or natural stone or a mixture of both; ii) with a roof covering of natural slate or good quality slate substitute; iii) of no greater than one and a half storeys in height; iv) incorporating windows with a strong vertical emphasis; v) with a roof pitch of not less than 37 o and not greater than 42o
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surroundings.
9. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details of the proposed means of landscaping of the site. Such a scheme shall include the species, numbers, sizes and planting distances of those trees and shrubs to be planted. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the occupation of the property. Any trees and shrubs failing to become established, dying, being removed or becoming seriously diseased within ten years, shall be replaced in the subsequent planting season with equivalent sizes and species to those originally required to be planted, unless the written consent of the Council as Planning Authority is obtained in advance in respect of any variation thereof..
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surroundings.
Advice Note:
It has been reported to the Council during the assessment of this application that firstly the proposed means of access is a private way over which there may be no legal right of access to serve the development proposed, and secondly, that the adjoining farmer has a future intention to use a substantial quantity of the F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 36 water flowing across his land which may have implications for the water available at the application site. The developer should satisfy himself/herself that notwithstanding any planning permission that there is no legal impediment to access being taken, and that sufficient water will be available to satisfy the requirements of condition 7 above.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 37
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 04/01180/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Mid-Argyll Local Plan (1st Alt) 1989
Policy RUR 1 – the proposal is within the Knapdale/Melfort Regional Scenic Area within which “the Council will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact” ….and in this context is assessed against:
Policy RUR 2 – Proposals will be required to be justified against the following criteria: (a) environmental impact (b) locational/operational need (c) economic benefit (d) infrastructure and servicing implications
Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt) 1993
Policy HO 13 – Small Scale Development in the Countryside -The Council is in favour of single or small scale residential development, providing there are no infrastructure, servicing or environmental constraints. Particular attention will be paid to infill, rounding off and redevelopment opportunities related to existing development and land forms.
Regard will be paid to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 and proposals which promote undesirable ribbon development, are out of scale or cumulatively affect the character of an area detrimentally are likely to be resisted.
Draft Argyll - Bute Local Plan
Policy STRAT DC 4 – Development in Rural Opportunity Area A) within Rural Opportunity Areas encouragement shall be given to small scale development on suitable sites which, in terms of siting and design, will visually integrate with the landscape and settlement pattern; this may include small scale development in the open countryside as well as small scale infill, rounding-off, redevelopment and change of use of building development. B) Irrelevant for this case C) Irrelevant for this case D) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith categories A), B), and C) above and those with incongruous and unacceptable siting and design characteristics, including development resulting in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence. E) Developments are also subject to consistency with other policies of the Structure Plan and in the Local Plan.
Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute, dated 2nd August 2001.
Policy POL TA 5 – New Housing Development With Access Proposed Directly Off Existing Private Ways Or With Access Proposed As An Extension To An Existing Private Way.
A) Where there is an existing private way serving up to and including 9 dwellinghouses at the time of the adoption of this policy, this private way may directly serve or be extended to serve 1 or 2 more dwellinghouses provided that the overall total off this private way does not at any time exceed 10 dwellinghouses.
B) The acceptability of additional dwellinghouses being serviced by an existing private way under (A) above is conditional on the proposed development meeting the access standards for private ways under POL TA 8 and achieving commensurate improvement in the condition of the private way as a consequence of the development taking place. Section 75 Agreements may be required to underpin such improvements. .
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 38
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None, neither for this particular site nor the additional site under consideration immediately to the south ref (04/01193/OUT).
Nearby history, relates to the plot immediately to the south of this site. Permission for that particular plot (now developed) was first granted in outline 1993 and renewed in outline in 1996. The later detailed consent ref (97/00064/DET) was granted on 05.03.97. The development of this nearby property commenced in September 1997 and was completed by the 10.11.1998; the date of completion is a relevant fact to be taken into account in terms of interpreting the relevance of the Council’s ‘Interim Roads and Private Way Policy’ in respect of the current application. That policy, adopted in 2001, limits development off the existing private way, since the adoption of the policy, to no more than 2 dwellings. Since the most recent development in this cluster served by this private way was built prior to the adoption of the policy, the current roads policy still enables 2 further dwellings to be built.
(ii) Consultations
• Senior Building Control Officer (report dated 15.11.04 following submission of latest Drainage Assessment from Scotia Water Services) : confirms that either of the alternative drainage arrangements detailed in the report would be acceptable.
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (letter dated 16.11.04 following submission of latest Drainage Assessment from Scotia Water Services): confirms that SEPA did have discussions with the consultant in respect of these matters. SEPA however states that the options put forward were only approved in principle rather than in detail. SEPA offers the following comments:
Option 1
SEPA agrees there is just about sufficient flow in the receiving watercourse to accept a direct discharge of biologically treated sewage effluent. To protect the water quality of the receiving watercourse and also to leave sufficient available capacity in the stream for future development and/or extensions to the proposed dwellings, may require SEPA to impose stringent consent conditions on the sewage discharge from the site. The level of treatment necessary to comply with these conditions may require additional measures (eg partial soakaway, reedbed, etc) to be incorporated.
Option 2
A soakaway system would be SEPA’s preferred method for disposing of the treated effluent from these plots (bio-plant or septic tank). The percolation tests undertaken at the site would appear to confirm that the ground conditions are suitable for this type of arrangement.
SEPA would not support the proposal to construct an interception drain adjacent to the soakaway system which according to Scotia W.S. will, if required, direct any surplus flow not being dispersed by the soakaway into the stream. This in effect would be legally interpreted as a septic tank and partial soakaway arrangement. This option would require to be consented in accordance with COPA and it is unlikely SEPA would approve such an arrangement, primarily as insufficient flow is available in the receiving watercourse.
SEPA would therefore affirm that both of the drainage options proposed for the plots are potentially sustainable solutions. Comment: it should be noted that the 2nd Option with the loss of the interceptor drain as required by SEPA would not overcome the concerns of property owners downhill about receiving partially treated ground waters.
• Head of Protective Services (30.8.04 and 14.10.04) notes that the objections received in respect of drainage issues are valid considerations and much is dependant on the location of the septic tank and outfall. It confirms the need for a report considering the location of the
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 39
outfall and impact on neighbouring properties; with adequate distance and percolation through the ground this may not be a problem. Subsequent to the submission of the drainage assessment, confirmation has been given that either option proposed would be acceptable from an environmental health point of view.
The Scotia Water report concludes that there will be sufficient quantity of water to serve the existing users and also to serve the proposed two houses, offering a number of options for extraction of water, focussing on one, namely the formation of an intake and tank inside the existing boundary of Traighuaine. This option allows for the extraction of water from a small burn and from the overflow from the existing system. This solution can be accepted, but in order to overcome any shortfall in supply it is recommended that the development should include the installation of a large storage tank sufficient to provide for the development proposed.
• Area Roads Manager (report dated 14.07.04): No objections subject to appropriate access conditions achieving 30m visibility splay, bellmouth arrangements and surfacing and parking provision for two vehicles and turning within the site.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised under Article 9 (Vacant Land) and as a ‘potential departure’ to policies RUR 1 & RUR 2 of the statutory Mid Argyll Local Plan. The period for representations expired on the 03.09.04.
Five letters of representation have been received from: Dr. E. N. Campbell Milne & Anne Campbell Milne of neighbouring ‘Tigh Ban Lek’ - this is the property immediately downhill and to the south of the southernmost of the two applications referenced 04/01193/OUT - (23.06.04); David and Doris Trafford of neighbouring ‘Reul-na-Mara’ (24.06.04); Mrs. Shelagh J. Cameron, who is a joint owner of Reu-na-Mara on the 29.06.04. Joe and Hazel Norman of neighbouring ‘Traighuaine Tri’ (23.06.04); and J. S. Adam of Garron & Melfort Farms, Ardfern (29.06.04).
The matters raised may be summarised as follows:
Firstly from Dr. E & A Campbell Milne (their objection is separated from the others due to their particular locational relationship downhill from the development, and the issues of drainage which had to be investigated).
• The land on which it is proposed to build slopes quite steeply. Placing a septic tank field on this piece of land would constitute a health hazard with the considerable chance that effluent will drain into my property.
Comment: This understandable concern has been considered by the applicant who has commissioned a drainage assessment, the results of which are reported below in section (iv) and assessed later in section (v) below.
• The water supply for 4 houses in this small community all comes from a stream on adjacent land. This supply has on numerous occasions dried up completely and there is certainly not enough water to serve the needs of an additional dwelling.
Comment : This issue has been considered by the applicant who commissioned a further professional report upon the same, the results of which are reported below in section (iv) and assessed later in section (v) below.
• The single lane (private) road serving this small community is ¼ mile long, and receives considerable wear and tear…the addition of another dwelling will add to the deterioration and consequential upkeep of the road.
Comment : Since the number of existing and proposed dwellings does not breach the Council’s standards in respect of the number of properties able to be served from private way, this aspect of the application is found to be acceptable. The upkeep of the private way is a private civil matter between those taking access from it.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 40
• The application states that no trees are to be felled. This is misleading since the owner has previously felled a large number of trees.
Comment: Whilst this aspect is true, the copse felled was primarily a small coniferous woodland the landscape merits of which were debatable.
• The value of the 3 houses (other than the applicant’s) depends largely on the privacy and beautiful views. The applicant has already diminished the beauty of the property by extensive tree-cutting and the addition of another dwelling will reduce property values.
Comment: Property values are not material planning considerations.
The neighbouring farmer, J. S. Adam, raises the following issues:
• The water supply for the houses at Traighuaine is sourced from a well and storage tank on my ground; it is my intention to use the water from the overflow on the existing tank.
Comment: The report commissioned by the applicant proves there is more than ample water for this development under current circumstances; an advisory note on this private matter, should the farmer seek to redirect a substantial quantity of these waters, before they flow through the application site/s would be appropriate. The Head of Protective Services considers that it would be prudent to require the developer to install a large capacity storage tank to serve both existing/proposed dwellings in order to avoid interruption of supply during dry periods.
• The road serving the properties is also partly owned by myself and the applicant has no right to any further use over the part of the road I own. A lawyers letter can be produced if necessary.
Comment : This remains a private matter. It should be noted that the same issue was raised at the time that the 1997 permission was granted for the dwelling now built directly to the south of this and the adjoining plot.
• It is noted on the application form that direct notification to the farm owner was not possible as the land was vacant; and objection is raised over lack of neighbour notification.
Comment : The correct procedure was followed by the applicant. The application was newspaper advertised because in planning terms the farmland is deemed ‘vacant’.
The following additional points have also been made by others making representations, who also concur with a number of the points of objection mentioned above:
• Upon purchasing our property 12 years ago we have always suffered from a severe shortage of water; this development would definitely make it critical.
Comment : As mentioned earlier a hydrologist report has been commissioned which receives comment below.
• The quality of the water supply fails to meet minimum standards (a copy of a letter received by J & H Norman of Traighuaine Tri from the Councils’ Principal Environmental Health Officer dated 20.10.03 states that “the results of a sample of water taken on the 8.10.03 from a microbiological examiner mean that : any water used for drinking, cooking, washing vegetables, preparing babies bottles etc must be boiled before use”. Accordingly the Normans say that : should the proposal be approved a condition should be applied that the water be drawn off at a point lower than the supply to the original properties.
Comment : It is normal practice to condition any permission , such as this, that occupation shall not occur until the water reaches the required quality standard, normally achieved through specific filtration systems monitored by Environmental Health. The Principal Environmental Health Officer comments that many private supplies fail to meet recognised standards from time to time unless appropriate treatment is applied.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 41
• The road is maintained by the occupants only. Heavy lorries involved in previous building have caused subsidence and this may occur again. In any permission a condition should be imposed to ensure that the current access is not restricted by new rights of access/parking.
Comment: Neither the boundaries of this site, nor the neighbouring application site, impinge on the private way. Use of the private way and avoidance/reinstatement of damage remains a private matter.
• The proposal does not indicate where the proposed single septic tanks shall be and the shared soakaway / soakaway outfall with a concern that they will drain into ‘Reul-na-Mara’. Has a soil perocity test been undertaken?
Comment : The results of a perocity test have been found to be acceptable.
• It is most unsatisfactory that the proposal for both plots is in “outline” as it leaves it open for any buildings whether they be chalets or houses to eventually be applied for.
Comment: It is legitimate for the principal of development to be sought by way of outline consent. It will be possible to secure an appropriate design at reserved matters stage.
• The felling of trees in advance of the application has removed the small measure of privacy the occupants of Ruel-na-Mara would at least have had.
Comment : Landscaping required by condition can help redress the loss of trees.
(iv) Supporting Information from Applicant, commenting upon the letters of objection received.
I have now submitted 2 reports upon water supply and drainage, showing conclusively that the two sites present no problem with either issue. These reports prepared by Dr. Bennett of Scotia Water Services offer the following information.
Water Yield Assessment
The existing supply to the group of houses at Traighuaine is from a spring on the hill immediately above the hamlet. The outflow from the spring, together with that from a small burn, is dammed by a small weir to form a shallow pool. Water is then piped from this pool to a concrete tank, from which the various properties take their water via a number of buried pipes. The overflow (and leakage) from the tank (in effect most of the inflow) then rejoins the small burn, which by itself is then joined by another watercourse a short distance uphill of the fence that forms the boundary to Traighuaine. The combined flow from the two burns then runs under the fence before being culverted under the garden of Traighuaine.
The existing water tank is in a poor state of repair and, whilst it is able to supply up to 7.5 people for a whole day without any inflow to replace the water used, it would benefit from replacement.
The total bed capacity of the existing 4 dwellings in the group is 24 people, rising to a possibility of about 38 in total should the 2 current applications be granted.
Following assessment it is concluded that the main burn will at its worst time yield 13,700 litres per day, and at its best 25,000 litres per day, with a mean of 19,300 litres per day; with the water yield increasing by a further mean of 3,550 litres from the additional smaller burn.
The consequences of this in relation to the Council’s requirement, in calculations, of 250 litres per head per day, implies that the mean spring source is sufficient for 77 people, which when added to the additional burn gives a mean level capable of supporting 91 people. Within the worst drought scenario it would be 54 and utilising the additional burn 64 persons, all significantly better than the potential maximum need of 38 persons.
Four options to collect the water are tabled in the report; they include options such as replacing the inefficient existing tank, but as such would require the consent of the other
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 42
householders in the group they are not favoured given their present objection. The favoured option, not involving the consent of neighbours or the adjoining farming landowner, is to construct a new tank within the ground of Traighuaine, being downstream of the existing tank not affecting the neighbours supply. It also offers the greatest possible daily volume of water as it will use the water from the additional burn. Its only drawback being because of the proposed tanks low level the water will need to be pumped, but this is not a logistical problem.
Drainage Assessment
Scotia Water’s interpretation of SEPA’s position is that whilst they do accept drainage from septic tanks directly into watercources this can only be accommodated where there is sufficient flow in the watercource to provide a dilution by a factor of 400;1 on an outflow volume based on 180 litres per head. Because the flow of water running through the site is not sufficient to accommodate this standard, other options have been assessed, involving : (a) ground assessment to determine the suitability of the ground for accommodating a septic tank and soakaway/infiltration system. (b) Percolation tests to determine the area of ground required for the system.
Ground Assessment of the northern plot (this site 04/01180/OUT) revealed it was not the best location, for a variety of reasons, but particularly because of the intended location of sourcing water supply. Having said this the site was still found to be capable of installing a system. Within this site there was found to be a maximum of 1 metre depth of permeable material sufficient for a system; no water table was found within the area.
Ground Assessment of the southern plot (the additional site 04/01193/OUT) was found to be far more suitable. Trial pits up to 2 metres (depth limited only by the size of the excavator) were dug. The water table was typically 1.5 to 1.8m conforming to paragraph M3.5b of the Building Regulations.
Percolation Tests were carried out in each of the two areas to ascertain the ability for the respective sites to service an infiltration system and the relative size necessary in each case dependant upon the conditions found. For this the northern plot, it would have to be 115 sq. metres, whilst for the servicing of the southern plot on its own it required 55 sq. metres, or if there were to be an infiltration system in the southern plot alone to service both dwellings in would need to be 111 sq metres.
In conclusion Scotia Waters opinion – taking in the concerns of (i) Environmental Health’s desire to not have a proliferation of septic tanks etc., and (ii) the objectors/Environmental Health anxiety over the potential of albeit treated waters seeping into neighbouring property downhill from either development – is that two alternative drainage solutions are possible: (a) a bioitank installed within the southern lower plot serving both houses with a discharge to the burn or (b) a traditional septic tank also within the southern lower plot, together with an infiltration system below which would be an interception drain to redirect any treated waters that might otherwise reach neighbouring land so that it is led to the burn.
Mrs Wyllie also comments: I am the only permanent resident out of the cluster of 4 houses at Triaighuaine.’ Traighuaine Tri’ is a second home occupied on average 3-6 days per month; ‘Tigh ban Lek’ is a second home occupied approximately one week in the last two years; the owners of ‘Reul na Mara’ own a second home in Lanzarote and usually spend 5-6 months of the year there. Having owned ‘Traighuaine’ since 1977 I intend to remain here as a permanent resident and the only way for me to do so is to sub-divide my land. Whilst I realise that this is not a reason in itself for granting planning permission, I would hope that it is general Council policy to facilitate permanent residency and to avoid a preponderance of second homes.
The location of the 2 sites are scarcely, if at all, visible from the road and allow for a well placed cluster of 6 houses. Several other applications for dwelling houses have recently been granted in the locality recently, which in contrast will have a significant impact on the landscape.
As I understand it none of the objections raised by my neighbours are valid in terms of planning legislation, and much of the information contained in their letters is inaccurate.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 43
(v) Assessment
This assessment first addresses the Council’s housing and environmental policies. The site is in an elevated position amidst an existing loose cluster of 4 relatively new dwellings, predominantly single storey, but with one 1½ storey, overlooking Croabh Haven and the northern extent of the Craignish peninsular. An elevated cluster of housing in this part of Argyll is unusual. Its contribution to the landscape is relatively neutral because the architecture is neither outstanding nor particularly jarring visually.
The proposal is to secure outline consent for two dwellings, by way of this application and an accompanying application each for single dwellings. Together they would increase the number of dwellings to six, but in a form which would be consistent with the general density of the existing group, as the plots are large and sufficiently spaced apart from the existing detached properties.
As the proposal can be regarded as a rounding off of this small cluster, in environmental terms it is consistent with Policy HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan. For similar reasons, I find the proposal can also be accepted under the environmental criteria of Policy RUR 1 / RUR 2. Dwellings in this location would, however, have to be of a quality design appropriate to their setting. This could be addressed at Reserved Matter stage. I am satisfied that there is adequate capacity to accommodate a dwelling on this site and a further dwelling on the adjoining plot.
A RUR 1/RUR 2 assessment also requires consideration of: - locational/operational need - none, but as the site is considered acceptable in environmental / landscape terms, this is not essential. - economic benefit – none other than that associated with construction. - infrastructure/servicing constraints - issues relating to roads, drainage and water supply are relevant here.
Roads - Based upon the Council’s Interim Roads and Private Ways Policy, as agreed in 2001, the development of this and the adjacent plot is acceptable; i.e. an additional two properties over and above the existing four dwellings (since the adoption of the policy), to be served from an existing private way with the consequential total number not exceeding six properties.
Drainage - Whilst SEPA can accept a single septic tank together with an infiltration system in the lower of the two sites (the accompanying application), they cannot accept the interception drain – downhill of the soakaway – being connected to the burn; as the discharge of even partly treated waters into this burn would produce a pollution issue. Without the interception drain – a matter acceptable to SEPA whose only remit in this instance is to control the watercourses – the partly treated waters would, upon leaving the soakaway, have a potential opportunity to create nuisance in the downhill garden of this steeply sloping area – a matter unacceptable to the Councils’ Environmental Health Officer.
Accordingly the only viable drainage method appears to be a biotank, to serve both this and the neighbouring site, positioned within the neighbouring application site (land edged ‘blue’ in relation to this site), with a discharge to the burn, the finer details of which would be established through SEPA’s discharge consent. Such a consent would be likely to require some form of additional soakaway/reedbed solution between the biotank and the burn, a matter not considered to be insurmountable by SEPA.
Water Supply - The preferred solution put forward by Scotia Water, proves a solution is possible. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer notes that given there have been complaints about shortage of supply it would be prudent, as part of any consent, to require a large storage tank to serve the proposed dwellings, which should help overcome problems associated with an erratic supply.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401180ARDUAINE0.DOC
Page 44
This page is intentionally left blank Page 45 Page 46
This page is intentionally left blank Page 47
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 18.06.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 03.11.04
Reference Number: 04/01193/OUT Applicants Name: Mrs. Fiona Wylie Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of a Dwellinghouse Location: Land to East of Traighuaine, Arduaine
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Outline Application for a Detached Dwellinghouse with details reserved for subsequent approval; • Shared foul drainage system with related application 04/01180/OUT for a further dwelling on an adjoining plot.
(ii) Other Aspects of the Development
• Utilisation of Existing Private Way; • Connection to a Private Water Supply.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the standard outline conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is one of two applications for outline planning permission for detached dwellings on adjacent plots. The sites are in an elevated location on the landward side of the A 816 at Arduaine, adjoining a loose cluster of four relatively modern dwellings. The development can be considered as a rounding off of this cluster and can be accepted as being consistent with adopted development plan policy in terms of Mid Argyll Local Plan Policies HO 13 and RUR 1 / 2, and both this application and the accompanying application for the adjoining site are being recommended for approval.
Five letters of objection have been received, both in terms of the principle of development and with regard to the perceived shortcomings of the water supply and foul drainage arrangements. The Head of Protective Services is satisfied that adequate water supply can be achieved subject to sufficient on- site storage being provided and subject to water treatment if necessary. Due to the fact that there are existing properties immediately below this site detailed consideration has been given at this outline planning stage as to the means by which foul drainage could be achieved without effluent being discharged onto neighbouring property. Both SEPA and the Council’s Head of Protective Services, along with the Council’s building control officers, have considered the options for draining these sites and have concluded that sustainable solutions are achievable, and that concerns over foul drainage arrangements would not warrant refusal of permission in principle.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 22.11.04
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 48
Author: Derek Hay Tel. 01546 - 604083 Contact Point: Richard Kerr Tel. 01546 - 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 49
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 04/01193/OUT
4. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall ensure that the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 and shall have visibility splays of 2.5 x 30 x 1.05 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access, which shall have bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the junction with the private way. Prior to work starting on site the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining private way and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reasons: In the interests of road safety.
5. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall ensure that the full details provide for a turning area and parking provision for 2 cars within the curtilage of the proposed dwellinghouse, drawn up in consultation with the Area Roads Manager. The parking and turning area shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwellinghouse.
Reasons: In the interests of road safety.
6. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall offer details of a foul drainage system designed to serve this and the neighbouring plot, which shall consist of a single biotank with a discharge into the burn, or such other system as may be agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the duly approved foul drainage system has been installed and is operational.
Reasons: In the interest of public health and amenity.
7. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall provide for the details of the proposed water supply and water storage arrangements as appropriately designed following consultation with the Councils’ Head of Protective Services. The dwelling shall not be first occupied until confirmation has been received in writing as to the adequacy of the quantity and quality of the proposed means of supply.
Reasons: In the interest of public health and amenity.
8. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 above shall comprise a dwellinghouse which is:
i) finished in wet dash render or natural stone or a mixture of both; ii) with a roof covering of natural slate or good quality slate substitute; iii) of no greater than one and a half storeys in height; iv) incorporating windows with a strong vertical emphasis; v) with a roof pitch of not less than 37 o and not greater than 42o
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surroundings.
9. Any details pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details of the proposed means of landscaping of the site. Such a scheme shall include the species, numbers, sizes and planting distances of those trees and shrubs to be planted. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the occupation of the property. Any trees and shrubs failing to become established, dying, being removed or becoming seriously diseased within ten years, shall be replaced in the subsequent planting season with equivalent sizes and species to those originally required to be planted, unless the written consent of the Council as Planning Authority is obtained in advance in respect of any variation thereof..
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surroundings.
Advice Note:
It has been reported to the Council during the assessment of this application that firstly the proposed means of access is a private way over which there may be no legal right of access to serve the development proposed, and secondly, that the adjoining farmer has a future intention to use a substantial quantity of the F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 50 water flowing across his land which may have implications for the water available at the application site. The developer should satisfy himself/herself that notwithstanding any planning permission that there is no legal impediment to access being taken, and that sufficient water will be available to satisfy the requirements of condition 7 above.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 51
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 04/01193/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Mid-Argyll Local Plan (1st Alt) 1989
Policy RUR 1 – the proposal is within the Knapdale/Melfort Regional Scenic Area within which “the Council will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact” ….and in this context is assessed against:
Policy RUR 2 – Proposals will be required to be justified against the following criteria: (a) environmental impact (b) locational/operational need (c) economic benefit (d) infrastructure and servicing implications
Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt) 1993
Policy HO 13 – Small Scale Development in the Countryside -The Council is in favour of single or small scale residential development, providing there are no infrastructure, servicing or environmental constraints. Particular attention will be paid to infill, rounding off and redevelopment opportunities related to existing development and land forms.
Regard will be paid to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 and proposals which promote undesirable ribbon development, are out of scale or cumulatively affect the character of an area detrimentally are likely to be resisted.
Draft Argyll - Bute Local Plan
Policy STRAT DC 4 – Development in Rural Opportunity Area A) within Rural Opportunity Areas encouragement shall be given to small scale development on suitable sites which, in terms of siting and design, will visually integrate with the landscape and settlement pattern; this may include small scale development in the open countryside as well as small scale infill, rounding-off, redevelopment and change of use of building development. B) Irrelevant for this case C) Irrelevant for this case D) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith categories A), B), and C) above and those with incongruous and unacceptable siting and design characteristics, including development resulting in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence. E) Developments are also subject to consistency with other policies of the Structure Plan and in the Local Plan.
Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute, dated 2nd August 2001.
Policy POL TA 5 – New Housing Development With Access Proposed Directly Off Existing Private Ways Or With Access Proposed As An Extension To An Existing Private Way.
A) Where there is an existing private way serving up to and including 9 dwellinghouses at the time of the adoption of this policy, this private way may directly serve or be extended to serve 1 or 2 more dwellinghouses provided that the overall total off this private way does not at any time exceed 10 dwellinghouses.
B) The acceptability of additional dwellinghouses being serviced by an existing private way under (A) above is conditional on the proposed development meeting the access standards for private ways under POL TA 8 and achieving commensurate improvement in the condition of the private way as a consequence of the development taking place. Section 75 Agreements may be required to underpin such improvements.
.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 52
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None, neither for this particular site nor the additional site under consideration immediately to the north ref (04/01180/OUT).
Nearby history, relates to the plot immediately to the south of this site. Nearby history, relates to the plot immediately to the south of this site. Permission for that particular plot (now developed) was first granted in outline 1993 and renewed in outline in 1996. The later detailed consent ref (97/00064/DET) was granted on 05.03.97. The development of this nearby property commenced in September 1997 and was completed by the 10.11.1998; the date of completion is a relevant fact to be taken into account in terms of interpreting the relevance of the Council’s ‘Interim Roads and Private Way Policy’ in respect of the current application. That policy, adopted in 2001, limits development off the existing private way, since the adoption of the policy, to no more than 2 dwellings. Since the most recent development in this cluster served by this private way was built prior to the adoption of the policy, the current roads policy still enables 2 further dwellings to be built.
(ii) Consultations
• Senior Building Control Officer (report dated 15.11.04 following submission of latest Drainage Assessment from Scotia Water Services): confirms that either of the alternative drainage arrangements detailed in the report would be acceptable.
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (letter dated 16.11.04 following submission of latest Drainage Assessment from Scotia Water Services): confirms that SEPA did have discussions with the consultant in respect of these matters. SEPA however states that the options put forward were only approved in principle rather than in detail. SEPA offers the following comments:
Option 1
SEPA agrees there is just about sufficient flow in the receiving watercourse to accept a direct discharge of biologically treated sewage effluent. To protect the water quality of the receiving watercourse and also to leave sufficient available capacity in the stream for future development and/or extensions to the proposed dwellings, may require SEPA to impose stringent consent conditions on the sewage discharge from the site. The level of treatment necessary to comply with these conditions may require additional measures (eg partial soakaway, reedbed, etc) to be incorporated.
Option 2
A soakaway system would be SEPA’s preferred method for disposing of the treated effluent from these plots (bio-plant or septic tank). The percolation tests undertaken at the site would appear to confirm that the ground conditions are suitable for this type of arrangement.
SEPA would not support the proposal to construct an interception drain adjacent to the soakaway system which according to Scotia W.S. will, if required, direct any surplus flow not being dispersed by the soakaway into the stream. This in effect would be legally interpreted as a septic tank and partial soakaway arrangement. This option would require to be consented in accordance with COPA and it is unlikely SEPA would approve such an arrangement, primarily as insufficient flow is available in the receiving watercourse.
SEPA would therefore affirm that both of the drainage options proposed for the plots are potentially sustainable solutions Comment: it should be noted that the 2nd Option with the loss of the interceptor drain as required by SEPA would not overcome the concerns of property owners downhill about receiving partially treated ground waters.
• Head of Protective Services (30.8.04 and 14.10.04) notes that the objections received in respect of drainage issues are valid considerations and much is dependant on the location
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 53
of the septic tank and outfall. It confirms the need for a report considering the location of the outfall and impact on neighbouring properties; with adequate distance and percolation through the ground this may not be a problem. Subsequent to the submission of the drainage assessment, confirmation has been given that either option proposed would be acceptable from an environmental health point of view.
The Scotia Water report concludes that there will be sufficient quantity of water to serve the existing users and also to serve the proposed two houses, offering a number of options for extraction of water, focussing on one, namely the formation of an intake and tank inside the existing boundary of Traighuaine. This option allows for the extraction of water from a small burn and from the overflow from the existing system. This solution can be accepted, but in order to overcome any shortfall in supply it is recommended that the development should include the installation of a large storage tank sufficient to provide for the needs of the development to be served from this private supply.
• Area Roads Manager (report dated 14.07.04): No objections subject to conditions achieving 30m visibility splay, bellmouth arrangements and surfacing and parking provision for two vehicles and turning within the site.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised under Article 9 (Vacant Land) and as a ‘potential departure’ to policies RUR 1 & RUR 2 of the statutory Mid Argyll Local Plan. The period for representations expired on the 03.09.04.
Five letters of representation have been received from: Dr. E. N. Campbell Milne & Anne Campbell Milne of neighbouring ‘Tigh Ban Lek’ - this is the property immediately downhill and to the south of the southernmost of the two applications referenced 04/01193/OUT - (23.06.04); David and Doris Trafford of neighbouring ‘Reul-na-Mara’ (24.06.04); Mrs. Shelagh J. Cameron, who is a joint owner of Reu-na-Mara on the 29.06.04. Joe and Hazel Norman of neighbouring ‘Traighuaine Tri’ (23.06.04); and J. S. Adam of Garron & Melfort Farms, Ardfern (29.06.04).
The matters raised may be summarised as follows:
Firstly from Dr. E & A Campbell Milne (their objection is separated from the others due to their particular locational relationship downhill from the development, and the issues of drainage which had to be investigated).
• The land on which it is proposed to build slopes quite steeply. Placing a septic tank field on this piece of land would constitute a health hazard with the considerable chance that effluent will drain into my property.
Comment: This understandable concern has been considered by the applicant who has commissioned a drainage assessment, the results of which are reported below in section (iv) and assessed later in section (v) below.
• The water supply for 4 houses in this small community all comes from a stream on adjacent land. This supply has on numerous occasions dried up completely and there is certainly not enough water to serve the needs of an additional dwelling.
Comment : This issue has been considered by the applicant who commissioned a further professional report upon the same, the results of which are reported below in section (iv) and assessed later in section (v) below.
• The single lane (private) road serving this small community is ¼ mile long, and receives considerable wear and tear…the addition of another dwelling will add to the deterioration and consequential upkeep of the road.
Comment : Since the number of existing and proposed dwellings does not breach the Council’s standards in respect of the number of properties able to be served from private way, this aspect
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 54
of the application is found to be acceptable. The upkeep of the private way is a private civil matter between those taking access from it.
• The application states that no trees are to be felled. This is misleading since the owner has previously felled a large number of trees.
Comment: Whilst this aspect is true, the copse felled was primarily a small coniferous woodland the landscape merits of which were debatable.
• The value of the 3 houses (other than the applicant’s) depends largely on the privacy and beautiful views. The applicant has already diminished the beauty of the property by extensive tree-cutting and the addition of another dwelling will reduce property values.
Comment: Property values are not material planning considerations.
The neighbouring farmer, J. S. Adam, raises the following issues:
• The water supply for the houses at Traighuaine is sourced from a well and storage tank on my ground; it is my intention to use the water from the overflow on the existing tank.
Comment: The report commissioned by the applicant proves there is more than ample water for this development under current circumstances; an advisory note on this private matter, should the farmer seek to redirect a substantial quantity of these waters, before they flow through the application site/s would be appropriate. The Head of Protective Services considers that it would be prudent to require the developer to install a large capacity storage tank to serve both existing/proposed dwellings in order to avoid interruption of supply during dry periods.
• The road serving the properties is also partly owned by myself and the applicant has no right to any further use over the part of the road I own. A lawyers letter can be produced if necessary.
Comment : This remains a private matter. It should be noted that the same issue was raised at the time that the 1997 permission was granted for the dwelling now built directly to the south of this and the adjoining plot.
• It is noted on the application form that direct notification to the farm owner was not possible as the land was vacant; and objection is raised over lack of neighbour notification.
Comment : The correct procedure was followed by the applicant. The application was newspaper advertised because in planning terms the farmland is deemed ‘vacant’.
The following additional points have also been made by others making representations, who also concur with a number of the points of objection mentioned above:
• Upon purchasing our property 12 years ago we have always suffered from a severe shortage of water; this development would definitely make it critical.
Comment : As mentioned earlier a hydrologist report has been commissioned which receives comment below.
• The quality of the water supply fails to meet minimum standards (a copy of a letter received by J & H Norman of Traighuaine Tri from the Councils’ Principal Environmental Health Officer dated 20.10.03 states that “the results of a sample of water taken on the 8.10.03 from a microbiological examiner mean that : any water used for drinking, cooking, washing vegetables, preparing babies bottles etc must be boiled before use”. Accordingly the Normans say that : should the proposal be approved a condition should be applied that the water be drawn off at a point lower than the supply to the original properties.
Comment : It is normal practice to condition any permission , such as this, that occupation shall not occur until the water reaches the required quality standard, normally achieved through specific filtration systems monitored by Environmental Health. The Principal Environmental
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 55
Health Officer comments that many private supplies fail to meet recognised standards from time to time unless appropriate treatment is applied.
• The road is maintained by the occupants only. Heavy lorries involved in previous building have caused subsidence and this may occur again. In any permission a condition should be imposed to ensure that the current access is not restricted by new rights of access/parking.
Comment: Neither the boundaries of this site, nor the neighbouring application site, impinge on the private way. Use of the private way and avoidance/reinstatement of damage remains a private matter.
• The proposal does not indicate where the proposed single septic tanks shall be and the shared soakaway / soakaway outfall with a concern that they will drain into ‘Reul-na-Mara’. Has a soil perocity test been undertaken?
Comment : The results of a perocity test have been found to be acceptable.
• It is most unsatisfactory that the proposal for both plots is in “outline” as it leaves it open for any buildings whether they be chalets or houses to eventually be applied for.
Comment: It is legitimate for the principal of development to be sought by way of outline consent. It will be possible to secure an appropriate design at reserved matters stage.
• The felling of trees in advance of the application has removed the small measure of privacy the occupants of Ruel-na-Mara would at least have had.
Comment : Landscaping required by condition can help redress the loss of trees.
(iv) Supporting Information from Applicant, commenting upon the letters of objection received.
I have now submitted 2 reports upon water supply and drainage, showing conclusively that the two sites present no problem with either issue. These reports prepared by Dr. Bennett of Scotia Water Services offer the following information.
Water Yield Assessment
The existing supply to the group of houses at Traighuaine is from a spring on the hill immediately above the hamlet. The outflow from the spring, together with that from a small burn, is dammed by a small weir to form a shallow pool. Water is then piped from this pool to a concrete tank, from which the various properties take their water via a number of buried pipes. The overflow (and leakage) from the tank (in effect most of the inflow) then rejoins the small burn, which by itself is then joined by another watercourse a short distance uphill of the fence that forms the boundary to Traighuaine. The combined flow from the two burns then runs under the fence before being culverted under the garden of Traighuaine.
The existing water tank is in a poor state of repair and, whilst it is able to supply up to 7.5 people for a whole day without any inflow to replace the water used, it would benefit from replacement.
The total bed capacity of the existing 4 dwellings in the group is 24 people, rising to a possibility of about 38 in total should the 2 current applications be granted.
Following assessment it is concluded that the main burn will at its worst time yield 13,700 litres per day, and at its best 25,000 litres per day, with a mean of 19,300 litres per day; with the water yield increasing by a further mean of 3,550 litres from the additional smaller burn.
The consequences of this in relation to the Council’s requirement, in calculations, of 250 litres per head per day, implies that the mean spring source is sufficient for 77 people, which when added to the additional burn gives a mean level capable of supporting 91 people. Within the
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 56
worst drought scenario it would be 54 and utilising the additional burn 64 persons, all significantly better than the potential maximum need of 38 persons.
Four options to collect the water are tabled in the report; they include options such as replacing the inefficient existing tank, but as such would require the consent of the other householders in the group they are not favoured given their present objection. The favoured option, not involving the consent of neighbours or the adjoining farming landowner, is to construct a new tank within the ground of Traighuaine, being downstream of the existing tank not affecting the neighbours supply. It also offers the greatest possible daily volume of water as it will use the water from the additional burn. Its only drawback being because of the proposed tanks low level the water will need to be pumped, but this is not a logistical problem.
Drainage Assessment
Scotia Water’s interpretation of SEPA’s position is that whilst they do accept drainage from septic tanks directly into watercources this can only be accommodated where there is sufficient flow in the watercource to provide a dilution by a factor of 400;1 on an outflow volume based on 180 litres per head. Because the flow of water running through the site is not sufficient to accommodate this standard, other options have been assessed, involving : (a) ground assessment to determine the suitability of the ground for accommodating a septic tank and soakaway/infiltration system. (b) Percolation tests to determine the area of ground required for the system.
Ground Assessment of the northern plot (site 04/01180/OUT) revealed it was not the best location, for a variety of reasons, but particularly because of the intended location of sourcing water supply. Having said this the site was still found to be capable of installing a system. Within this site there was found to be a maximum of 1 metre depth of permeable material sufficient for a system; no water table was found within the area.
Ground Assessment of the southern plot (this site 04/01193/OUT) was found to be far more suitable. Trial pits up to 2 metres (depth limited only by the size of the excavator) were dug. The water table was typically 1.5 to 1.8m conforming to paragraph M3.5b of the Building Regulations.
Percolation Tests were carried out in each of the two areas to ascertain the ability for the respective sites to service an infiltration system and the relative size necessary in each case dependant upon the conditions found. For the northern plot, it would have to be 115 sq. metres, whilst for the servicing of this (the southern) plot on its own it required 55 sq. metres, or if there were to be an infiltration system in the southern plot alone to service both dwellings in would need to be 111 sq metres.
In conclusion Scotia Waters opinion – taking in the concerns of (i) Environmental Health’s desire to not have a proliferation of septic tanks etc., and (ii) the objectors/Environmental Health anxiety over the potential of albeit treated waters seeping into neighbouring property downhill from either development – is that two alternative drainage solutions are possible: (a) a bioitank installed within this, the southern lower plot serving both houses with a discharge to the burn or (b) a traditional septic tank also within the southern lower plot, together with an infiltration system, below which would be an interception drain to redirect any treated waters that might otherwise reach neighbouring land so that it is led to the burn.
Mrs Wyllie also comments: I am the only permanent resident out of the cluster of 4 houses at Triaighuaine.’ Traighuaine Tri’, is a second home occupied on average 3-6 days per month; ‘Tigh ban Lek’ is a second home occupied approximately one week in the last two years; the owners of ‘Reul na Mara’ own a second home in Lanzarote and usually spend 5-6 months of the year there. Having owned ‘Traighuaine’ since 1977 I intend to remain here as a permanent resident and the only way for me to do so is to sub-divide my land. Whilst I realise that this is not a reason in itself for granting planning permission, I would hope that it is general Council policy to facilitate permanent residency and to avoid a preponderance of second homes.
The location of the 2 sites are scarcely, if at all, visible from the road and allow for a well placed cluster of 6 houses. Several other applications for dwelling houses have recently been
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 57
granted in the locality recently, which in contrast will have a significant impact on the landscape.
As I understand it none of the objections raised by my neighbours are valid in terms of planning legislation, and much of the information contained in their letters is inaccurate.
(v) Assessment
This assessment first addresses the Council’s housing and environmental policies. The site is in an elevated position amidst an existing loose cluster of 4 relatively new dwellings, predominantly single storey, but with one 1½ storey, overlooking Croabh Haven and the northern extent of the Craignish peninsular. An elevated cluster of housing in this part of Argyll is unusual. Its contribution to the landscape is relatively neutral because the architecture is neither outstanding nor particularly jarring visually.
The proposal is to secure outline consent for two dwellings, by way of this application and an accompanying application each for single dwellings. Together they would increase the number of dwellings to six, but in a form which would be consistent with the general density of the existing group, as the plots are large and sufficiently spaced apart from the existing detached properties.
As the proposal can be regarded as a rounding off of this small cluster, in environmental terms it is consistent with Policy HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan. For similar reasons, I find the proposal can also be accepted under the environmental criteria of Policy RUR 1 / RUR 2. Dwellings in this location would, however, have to be of a quality design appropriate to their setting. This could be addressed at Reserved Matter stage. I am satisfied that there is adequate capacity to accommodate a dwelling on this site and a further dwelling on the adjoining plot.
A RUR 1/RUR 2 assessment also requires consideration of: - locational/operational need - none, but as the site is considered acceptable in environmental / landscape terms, this is not essential. - economic benefit – none other than that associated with construction. - infrastructure/servicing constraints - issues relating to roads, drainage and water supply are relevant here.
Roads - Based upon the Council’s Interim Roads and Private Ways Policy, as agreed in 2001, the development of this and the adjacent plot is acceptable; i.e. an additional two properties over and above the existing four dwellings (since the adoption of the policy), to be served from an existing private way with the consequential total number not exceeding six properties.
Drainage - Whilst SEPA can accept a single septic tank together with an infiltration system within this site (also to serve the site above), they cannot accept the interception drain – downhill of the soakaway – being connected to the burn; as the discharge of even partly treated waters into this burn would produce a pollution issue. Without the interception drain – a matter acceptable to SEPA whose only remit in this instance is to control the watercourses – the partly treated waters would, upon leaving the soakaway, have a potential opportunity to create nuisance in the downhill garden of this steeply sloping area – a matter unacceptable to the Councils’ Environmental Health Officer.
Accordingly the only viable drainage method appears to be a biotank, to serve both this and the neighbouring site, positioned within this application site with a discharge to the burn, the finer details of which would be established through SEPA’s discharge consent. Such a consent would be likely to require some form of additional soakaway/reedbed solution between the biotank and the burn, a matter not considered to be insurmountable by SEPA.
Water Supply - The preferred solution put forward by Scotia Water, proves a solution is possible. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer notes that given there have been complaints about shortage of supply it would be prudent, as part of any consent, to require a large storage tank to serve the proposed dwellings, which should help overcome problems associated with an erratic supply.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401193ARDUANIE0.DOC
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank Page 59 Page 60
This page is intentionally left blank Page 61
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 9.7.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 6.10.04
Reference Number: 04/01219/DET Applicants Name: Scottish Water Solutions Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Construction of a waste water treatment facility, access, lay-by, control kiosk and formation of a slipway Location: Foreshore adjoining ‘Lochside’, Lochgair
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Raising of existing ground levels and installation of retaining structure to accommodate below ground valve chamber pumping station and septic tank; • Formation of access and lay-by to accommodate tanker and maintenance vehicles; • Formation of slipway for recreational use.
(ii) Other Aspects of the Development:
• Installation of above ground control kiosk (within ‘permitted development’ limits); • Installation of collection and transfer sewer to intercept existing sewage discharge into Loch Gair; • Construction of long sea outfall to Loch Fyne; • Construction of storm outfall to discharge to Loch Gair (below MLWS).
(B) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to:
i) an informal hearing being held prior to the determination of the application, in view of the number of representations received from third parties; ii) the standard time limit condition and reason, and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The settlement of Lochgair is partly served by an adopted communal septic tank with a short sea outfall into Loch Gair, and partly by individual private septic tanks. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations (1994) require ‘appropriate treatment’ to be provided to meet EU standards. This will require Scottish Water to provide primary treatment to serve those properties connected to the existing system, although there is no obligation to connect additional properties to the public system. The existing septic tank is unable to be replaced in its existing location due to the limitations of the site and the need to collect the sewers from properties lower down, which are currently connected to the discharge pipe from tank rather than to the tank itself. This necessitates the development of a site adjacent to the foreshore. (If the site were to be located in a landward location, a pumping station would nevertheless be required at this or a similar site).
The proposal is to install a new tank and associated equipment and ancillary works, served by a long sea outfall to Loch Fyne. There is only one site in Lochgair which is adjacent to the foreshore and capable of reasonable access by tanker. This site currently has permission for a recreational slipway although this has not been implemented. The scheme involves infilling and retaining part of the foreshore to accommodate the underground plant, and involves the provision of a slipway which will initially provide an off-road platform for construction, and facilitate recreational use in the long-
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 62
term. The site is served by a single track road and is closely adjoined by residential property. There is a history of tidal inundation in this locality.
There are no objections to the proposal from consultees, subject to precautions being taken to minimise the risk of pollution. The discharge consent for the outfall will be issued by SEPA whilst the Council will be responsible for issues relating to odour control.
Objections or concerns regarding the proposal have been raised by 10 local households and the Lochgair Association, largely in relation to anticipated problems associated with flooding of the site and nuisance from smells.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 20th September 2004
Author: Richard Kerr (01546) 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 63
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01219/DET
2. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, prior to the treatment works being first commissioned, the carriageway shall be widened locally to a width of 5.5 metres, including 30 degree tapers, over the full length of the site frontage, to a specification which shall be agreed in advance in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Area Roads Manager.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
3. Samples and or full details of the proposed facing and surfacing of the slipway, layby, and the surface area of the septic tank, valve chamber and pumping station, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority before development is commenced. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to secure an appropriate appearance in the interests of visual amenity.
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
1. Notwithstanding the fact that the installation of the proposed control kiosk constitutes ‘permitted development’ Scottish Water Solutions have indicated their willingness to clad this structure externally in order to secure an appearance appropriate to this location. The Council as Planning Authority would welcome consultation over the proposed materials to be used and the design of this means of enclosure.
2. Regard should be had to the response from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (copy attached) dated 7.9.04.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 64
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/01219/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Mid Argyll Local Plan 1985 (1st Alt. 1989 and 2nd Alt. 1993)
Policy STRAT DC1 – Lochgair is identified as a minor settlement, where small scale, or in exceptional cases, medium scale development is supported.
Policy E8 – identifies Lochgair as a ‘special built environment area’ where conservation and enhancement is promoted.
'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003)
.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
03/01796/DET Planning permission granted for slipway (18.11.03).
(ii) Consultations
Head of Protective Services
SEPA (7.9.04) – comment as follows: Foul drainage – Loch Gair is designated as recreational and shellfish growing waters. Appropriate treatment to meet EU Directive standards for the community of Lochgair is primary treatment, i.e a septic tank. SEPA discharge consent will be required to meet appropriate standards. The regulatory obligation is to upgrade the system for those properties already connected to the public system and not to provide additional connections. Odour – situations giving rise to malodour can arise with septic tanks. Controls are to be exercised by the Council under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, rather than by SEPA. Flood Risk – The locality is subject to tidal inundation and therefore the installation should be designed to address risk from flooding; Construction – the developer should adhere to recommended pollution prevention guidelines.
Area Roads Manager (13.7.04) – no objection subject to condition.
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (21.7.04) – no objection.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 65
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised in the local newspaper under the provisions of Article 9. The period for representations expired on 6th August 2004. Letters of objection have been received from the following:
Mr J Graham Neilson, Lochside, Lochgair PA31 8SD (27.7.04); Mr C Freer, 4 Gallanach, Lochgair PA31 8SD (29.7.04); M M Finlay, 6 Upper Lochgair, PA31 8SB (1.8.04) Capt. S Norwell, Cabarfeidh, Lochgair PA31 8SD (3.8.04); Prof. W Foulds CBE, Melford Cottage, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (4.8.04); Mr and Mrs F Belll, Clachaig, 5 Gallanach, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (4.8.04); Mrs E Wells, Gair Cottage, Lochgair, PA31 8SD (31.7.04); Mr C Culley, Ash House, Cleish, Kinross, KY13 0LR (owners of Gallanach Cottage)(5.8.04); Mr and Mrs J Coleman, Achnabreac, Lochgilphead PA31 8SD (4.8.04); Dr and Mrs McCulloch, Camus Beag, Lochgair PA31 8SD (4.8.04); The Lochgair Association, 6 Gallanach, Lochgair PA31 8SD (26.7.04).
The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:
• The development may adversely affect the gabion wall and private septic tank at ‘Lochside’ adjacent to the site;
Comment: Issues of potential damage arising from construction works would be civil legal issues between the applicants and the owner of propery concerned.
• The works are located close to residential properties and unless a smell free works can be guaranteed they should be located on a more open site;
Comment: The existing communal septic tank despite its age and attendant shortcomings, does not give rise to nuisance from smell despite being located close to residential property. This position has been accepted by residents in their letters and by advocating redevelopment of that site. The septic tank would be an underground sealed vessel, discharged by close coupling to the tanker when required.
• The proposal will only serve half the houses in the village and will not serve future development. It will therefore only partly remedy pollution problems in Loch Gair;
Comment: The failure of Scottish Water’s Coastal Communities programme to address the needs of property served by private drainage systems, or to provide for future development, has been a source of criticism by residents in this and other communities, by the Council and by SEPA. However, Scottish Water are only required by legislation to remedy the defects associated with existing sub-standard public sewer systems. They have, as a matter of policy, established their stance in relation to the regulatory requirements, which does not extend to the connection of private systems, or to the provision of capacity tailored to future settlement growth. This is therefore a matter for Scottish Water to address as sewerage authority, and cannot be influenced by the Council as part of the planning application process.
• The site is regularly flooded by high tides and waves breaking over the shore. The risk of flooding may lead to smell nuisance as a result of salt water ingress as has been experienced in Inveraray, or pollution from contaminated floodwater (photographs of flood conditions have been supplied);
Comment: Scottish Water have confirmed that they have engineered the site in the knowledge of highest astronomical tide levels and with regard to potential wave inundation. If flooded in the course of an extreme event the overflow would be discharged by pumps via an outfall with a ‘no return’ valve. The sealed vessel would not discharge into the surrounding area or contaminate floodwater.
• The environmental impact of the proposal outweighs the need to site it in this location to ensure the connection of the 3 or 4 properties which currently connect to the discharge
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 66
pipe rather than to the existing septic tank. Redevelopment of the existing site would pose less of a threat than a site prone to inundation;
Comment: Scottish Water have confirmed that this option has been considered. However redevelopment of this site would not allow properties below to be connected to the system. If the site were to be redeveloped a pumping station would in any event be required on the foreshore, which would give rise to most of the same concerns now being directed at the installation of the proposed septic tank.
• Development of the site will cause residents substantial disruption, and may lead to the single track road being closed for prolonged periods;
Comment: Some disruption must be expected from an engineering operation of this nature. Construction is expected to last for five months although not at the same intensity throughout. It is proposed to construct the slipway in the early stages of the contract to allow this to be used as a platform from which to undertake operations which would otherwise have lead to periods of blockage of the single track cul-de-sac.
• The storm water overflow proposed is impracticable as it will discharge onto soft mud flats at low water level where it may pollute the beach.
Comment: The design and operation of the outfalls is a matter between Scottish Water and SEPA and is not a planning consideration.
• The proposed slipway would attract more visitors to the bay but the proposal will be unsightly and will detract from the amenity of the area. The fibreglass kiosk will be unsightly. If required along the shoreline it should be sited further along the loch side where it would have less of an impact in the most densely populated part of the village;
Comment: The proposal will involve the raising of ground levels and the formation of a gabion crate retaining structure (as serves the parking area for the adjacent dwelling). The tank and associated plant will however be buried underground and will not be visible. The only significant above ground element will be the control kiosk. Although is within ‘permitted development’ tolerances and does not require planning permission, Scottish Water have indicated to their willingness to clad the standard GRP unit in a more sympathetic material (such as artificial stone) in order to reduce its visual impact in this sensitive setting. The integration of the development with the lay-by and slipway should help to render it less of an isolated incongruous feature.
• The proposed alternative slipway leaves the road at right angles which will make it difficult for vehicles towing larger craft and leads to an unstable area of beach unsuited to larger craft;
Comment: There is no obligation upon the applicants to provide a facility to serve a particular size of boat.
• The proposed tank and kiosk will be sited 20’ from the front window of Gallanach Cottage and it is questioned whether it is legal to site such a facility so close to residential property.
Comment: BS6297 (Cess Pools an Septic Tanks) indicates that a minimum separation distance of 15 metres is ‘desirable’ which implies that lesser distances may be acceptable. Domestic septic tanks are routinely sited within 5 metres of dwellings.
C. ASSESSMENT
The proposal is to install a new wastewater system to primary treatment standard with a long sea outfall, to replace an aged communal septic tank with a discharge into the shellfish/recreational waters of Loch Gair. Redevelopment of the existing site has been discounted due to the inability to connect all properties currently served by the public sewer, without recourse to a pumped system. A foreshore location is therefore a pre-requisite. Suitable sites are limited, particularly in view of the narrow nature of the road along the edge of the
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 67
foreshore which would be required for tanker access to the site, and Scottish Water consider the application site to be the only reasonably practicable location. The site benefits from an unimplemented consent for a slipway which is intended to replace the historic use of the shelving foreshore for boat launching/recovery. The applicants intend to incorporate a repositioned slipway within their proposal.
The scheme involves building a level platform on the foreshore adjacent to the proposed slipway in order to accommodate a buried septic tank, valve chamber and pumping station. This would be retained by stone filled gabion baskets, protected by rip-rap boulders to improve the appearance of the works and to provide some wave protection. The site is susceptible to wave inundation and tidal flooding, and therefore the site has been engineered to avoid inundation other than in the case of extraordinary flood events. The level of the site (and tank covers) will be 0.5 metre above existing road level, and above highest astronomical tide levels. The site incorporates a lay-by for maintenance vehicles and a tanker. The latter would be close-coupled to avoid odour nuisance during discharging operations. A control kiosk would be the only significant above ground element (3.0m long and 2.0m high). The applicants have indicated their willingness to clad this (in artificial stone or something similar) in order to improve its appearance over the standard GRP unit.
The site is closely adjoined by residential properties. Residents are understandably fearful that the site will become a source of malodour, particularly if it becomes flooded out. They point out that exceptional conditions can result in flood levels which exceed highest astronomical tide predictions. They would prefer re-use of the existing site which is in a less prominent location and which has not given rise to nuisance in the past. Scottish Water have discounted this as an option, and point out that in any event, even if the septic tank was located elsewhere, a pumping station would still be required in the same or a similar location to that proposed for this development, which would equally give rise to the principal concerns expressed by the objectors.
The development will change the character of the foreshore area, which will take on the appearance of an engineered and retained area and slipway, rather than the natural foreshore area found at present. However, a change in the character of this area has already been accepted as a consequence of the permission granted in 2003 to the Lochgair Association for an engineered slipway. If installed and operated properly, the treatment works is capable of operation without significant odour or pollution risk, despite its shoreline location where it will be vulnerable from occasional flooding. Scottish Water are aware of the local conditions and intend to engineer the installation accordingly. They indicate that the septic tank will be a sealed vessel secured from salt water ingress and with sealed covers to prevent any leakage or potential contamination of floodwaters. In the event of an extreme event, pumps within the unit would ensure that discharge would be made via the proposed storm/emergency overflow into Loch Gair. The electrical elements serving this would be mounted high up in the control kiosk where they would not be susceptible to flooding. In the event that Scottish Water fails to operate the site as designed, and pollution arises as a consequence, it would be a matter for SEPA to enforce discharge conditions, and for the Council to address any statutory nuisance arising from odours.
Residents are further concerned that the proposal does not fully address pollution issues affecting Loch Gair in that only half of the dwellings in the village are connected to the public sewer and the remainder will continue to have private discharges into the loch. They also point out that the new local plan envisages further development in the village and the scheme does not provide additional capacity to serve this growth. These are clearly an important issues, which have arisen elsewhere in association with equivalent schemes serving coastal communities. However, Scottish Water has established as a policy its response to the regulatory obligations with which it is faced, and this does not provide for the connection of existing private systems, or for the provision of additional capacity to serve future growth. However regrettable, this cannot be addressed in response to the perceived shortcomings of the scale of the development proposed. How Scottish Water chooses to exercise its functions as a sewerage authority cannot be a material planning consideration.
Despite misgivings about the appropriateness of a partial scheme to address pollution issues in Loch Gair, particularly given the consequences of the introduction of an engineered feature in a largely undisturbed location, and close to residential properties, it appears that the solution proposed is the only practicable one which can serve the needs of all of those properties
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 68
currently connected to the public sewer. In the circumstances, an in the absence of any realistic alternative which would have a lesser environmental impact, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed.
D. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR AN INFORMAL HEARING
Given the number of representations received against the proposal (eleven) Members are recommended to hold an informal hearing in advance of a decision being made in respect of this application. This would be particularly appropriate in view of the technical aspects of the proposal and the value of the applicants being present to address issues raised by third parties and Members.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401219LOCHGAIR0.DOC
Page 69 Page 70
This page is intentionally left blank Page 71
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. Robin Currie PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 5th July 2004 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 8th December 2004
Reference Number: 04/01309/DET Applicants Name: T. & W. Wood Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Application Description: Erection of two single storey dwellinghouses, garages, septic tank, formation of new access and agricultural access to classified road. Location: Land East of Coultorsay, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of two single storey dwellinghouses, detached garages and oil storage tanks; • Installation of septic tank and irrigation trench; • Formation of two new vehicular accesses to the classified road, including engineering operations to provide visibility splays;
(ii) Other specified operations:
• Connection to public water main
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted as a ‘minor departure’ to the Development Plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This application relates to an area of land detached from and to the south west of Bruichladdich. The proposal is to construct two single storey dwellings served by a single access point. The site is open to view from the public road but otherwise forms a well-defined hollow contained by rising land to the sides and rear.
The current local plan policies STRAT 4/4A and HO 6 require developments to be confined to identified development sites in order that the setting of the settlement does not become eroded. The proposal would therefore represent a departure to the current plan. The development potential of this land has, however, been recognised in the new draft local plan by the proposed extension of the settlement boundary of Bruichladdich to encompass this area. Intervening topography between the current limits of the settlement and the application site would not favour development, and therefore the site will form a small outlier to the settlement of Bruichladdich, contained by the landform, which will not lead to ‘ribbon development’. The rising land on the south side of the hollow provides a physical barrier to the further extension of any development at this location, and would also provide topographical definition to the southern boundary of the settlement. The proposed low density development at this location would be neither prominent nor incongruous within the wider landscape setting, and would sit comfortably within this area of transition between a built up area and the open countryside.
No representations have been received from third parties in respect of the application or in respect of the enlarged settlement boundary proposed by the draft local plan.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 72
.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 19th November 2004
Author: Peter Bain – 01546 604082 Contact officer: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 73
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/01309/DET
2. Prior to the commencement of development the details of the finish to be applied to the external walls of the dwellinghouses and detached garages, hereby approved, along with samples and or full details of the roofing material, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Such details shall show the external walls to be finished in either a white or recessive grey/brown wet dash render, and the roof shall be natural slate or a good quality slate substitute. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to assist in the integration of the development into its surroundings.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed finished floor level of each dwellinghouse relative to an identifiable fixed datum located outwith the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to assist in the integration of the development into its surroundings. . 4. The development shall not begin until details of a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include:
• location and design, including materials of any walls, fences and gates; • surface treatment of means of access and hardstanding areas.
Neither of the dwellinghouses shall be occupied until the approved scheme of boundary and surface treatment works have been undertaken for the respective dwellinghouse in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of boundary and surface treatment required in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order(s) 1992, (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 3 of or Schedule 1 to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 2 and Classes 7, 9 of the of the aforementioned Schedule 1, as summarised below:
PART 2: MINOR OPERATIONS Class 7: Gates, fences, walls and other means of enclosures. Class 9: Stone cleaning and exterior painting of any building work.
No such development shall be carried out at any time within these Parts and Classes without the express grant of planning permission.
Reason: To protect the area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, in the interest of visual amenity, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, having regard to the siting of the development in a sensitive rural location.
6. The proposed agricultural access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. TM205 with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 10 metres back from the existing carriageway edge and shall have visibility splays of 4.5 metres x 215 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over 1.05 metres in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over 1.05 metres in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 74
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
7. The gradient of the proposed new agricultural access shall not exceed 1 in 15 within 4.5 metres of the edge of the existing carriageway and shall thereafter not be steeper than 1 in 7.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
8. The proposed access to serve the dwellinghouses hereby approved shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. TM197, with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the existing carriageway edge, and shall have visibility splays of 4.5 metres x 215 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over 1.05 metres in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over 1.05 metres in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9. The gradient of the proposed access to serve the dwellinghouses, hereby approved, shall not exceed 1 in 15 within 4.5 metres of the edge of the existing carriageway and shall thereafter not be steeper than 1 in 7.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
NOTE TO APPLICANT RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/01309/DET
1. The Area Roads Manager notes that the new accesses shall require to be constructed to a standard which ensures that no surface water is discharged to the public road.
2. Regard should be had to the attached consultation responses from SEPA and Scottish Water in respect of the proposed development.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 75
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 04/01309/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002
Policy STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements
Encouragement shall be given, subject to capacity assessments, to development in the settlements as follows:
A) Within the Main Towns …
B) Within the Small Towns and Villages to development serving a local community of interest, up to and including medium scale development, on appropriate infill, rounding-off and redevelopment sites; in exceptional cases large scale development may be supported.
C) Within the Minor Settlements …
D) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith A), B) and C) above and urban bad neighbour developments which are essentially incompatible with the close configuration of land uses found in settlements eg. mineral extraction development or development which results in excessively high development densities, settlement cramming or inappropriate rounding-off on the edge of settlements.
E) Developments in settlements are also subject to consistency with the other policies of this Structure Plan and in the Local Plan.
Islay, Jura and Colonsay Local Plan (1st Review & Alteration) 1988
Settlement Strategy STRAT 4
A presumption in favour of single or small scale residential development in the countryside except:
(i) in locations identified as important for nature, heritage or archaeological conservation; (ii) in areas of better quality or “in-bye” agricultural land; (iii) in the … Bruichladdich … settlement areas.
Settlement Strategy STRAT 4A
All proposals for single or small scale residential development in the Islands countryside will be examined in terms of infrastructure and servicing implications and in scenic areas and coasts careful consideration will be given to the design, setting and scale of the development. In addition the areas covered by STRAT 4(i)-(iii) proposals will require to be justified against the following criteria:
(i) locational/operational need; (ii) economic benefit; (iii) sterilisation of natural resources; (iv) environmental impact (v) effect on conservation of natural and heritage resources; (vi) alternative policies and proposals contained in the local plan.
Policy HO 6
The settlement patterns of … Bruichladdich … require that infill development in these settlements be restricted to sites identified by the Council.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 76
Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2003 Consultative Draft
Policy STRAT DC 1 – Development Within the Settlements
Encouragement shall be given, subject to capacity assessments, to development in the settlements as follows:
A) Within the Main Towns …
B) Within the Small Towns and Villages to development serving a local community of interest, up to and including medium scale development, on appropriate infill, rounding-off and redevelopment sites; in exceptional cases large scale development may be supported.
C) Within the Minor Settlements …
D) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith A), B) and C) above and urban bad neighbour developments which are essentially incompatible with the close configuration of land uses found in settlements eg. mineral extraction development or development which results in excessively high development densities, settlement cramming or inappropriate rounding-off on the edge of settlements.
E) Developments in settlements are also subject to consistency with the other policies of this Structure Plan and in the Local Plan.
Policy H 1 – Housing Development
A) There is a presumption in favour of housing development other than those categories, scales and locations of development in B) below. Housing development, for which there is a presumption in favour, will be supported unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact.
B) Other than in exceptional circumstances, housing development shall be resisted when it involves:
In the settlements:
1. large scale housing development in the small towns and villages and minor settlements.
C) Housing development for which there is a presumption against, will not be supported unless the environmental, servicing and access impact is acceptable and unless an exceptional case is successfully demonstrated.
Policy H 4 – Housing Layout and Design
A) Encouragement shall be given to traditional, innovative and sympathetic housing development layout and design which are appropriate to their mainland, island, town. Village, minor settlement, countryside or coastal settings.
B) Housing layout and designs which are judged by the planning authority to be of a low standard or ‘not good enough’ for the location and setting of the development will be resisted. Overly suburbanised forms of development are unlikely to be accepted in sensitive locations in villages, minor settlements and countryside.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
There is no relevant site history in respect of the current application.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 77
(ii) Consultations
• Scottish Water (received 21.07.04) – No objections subject to note to applicant.
• Area Roads Manager (26.07.04) – No objections subject to conditions with regard to access geometry and provision of visibility splays.
• West of Scotland Archaeology Service (30.07.04) – No objections.
• SEPA (16.08.04 & 05.11.04) – No objections to proposed foul drainage arrangements; however, it was initially noted that the proposed culverting of the existing watercourse on the site is unacceptable and contrary to the guidance contained within NPPG 14 ‘Planning and Natural Heritage. The subsequent response in respect of the amended plans note that the proposal is now acceptable.
• Development Plans Section (31.08.04) – The draft local plan identifies an extended settlement boundary to the south-west of Bruichladdich to include developable land contained by the existing landform. There have not been any representation lodged against such an extension of this boundary. The proposed development would represent a natural rounding-off of the settlement in respect of the extended settlement boundary.
(iii) Publicity
The current proposal has been advertised under the provisions of Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(Scotland) Order 1992 and as a ‘Potential Departure’ (closing date 30th September 2004) – to date, no letters of representation have been received.
C. ASSESSMENT
The proposal is a detailed application for the erection of two, single storey dwellinghouses of relatively traditional design and finishes with detached single garages and oil storage tanks; installation of a single septic tank and irrigation trench and formation of two new accesses onto the public road
The application site is located within the Islay, Jura and Colonsay Local Plan (1st Review and Alteration) 1988 settlement inset map for Bruichladdich, but outwith areas identified as suitable for residential development by the provisions of POL HO 6. Consequently the proposal requires to be assessed against the criteria set out under settlement strategy STRAT 4A as follows:
(i) Locational/Operational Need:
The applicant has not submitted any such claim of locational or operational need in support of the application.
(ii) Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
(iii) Environmental Impact:
The application site lies within the Islay, Jura and Colonsay Local Plan (1st alt.) 1988 Settlement Inset Map for Bruichladdich, but outwith the areas identified as suitable for housing under the provisions of POL HO 6; the proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of the adopted plan. The application site has however been included within the enlarged settlement boundary for Bruichladdich proposed by the draft Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2003, where the provisions of STRAT DC 1 would encourage small scale infill, rounding-off and redevelopment related to the existing built form.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 78
The application site is located in a small hollow which lies to the west of the public road and to the south of the settlement of Bruichladdich. The site is open to view from the road but is screened to the north, west and south by the natural landform. The most southerly house within the settlement of Bruichladdich is located some 150m to the north of the site; the land in between is elevated and does not provide obvious development potential due to the prominence of such an elevated location. The land to the south of the application site is open countryside and is of a distinctly separate landscape character to that surrounding the settlement of Bruichladdich.
The proposed dwellinghouses are of identical single storey, gable-ended, traditional design sited to address the public road, with a peaked roof porch to the front and sunroom to the rear. The external walls shall be finished in a wet dash render (colour to be agreed by planning condition); the roof covering shall be of natural slate and; the windows shall be of white uPVC with a double swing movement. The detached garages are located to the rear of the site and shall be finished to match the dwellinghouses.
The site lies within an area of transition between the existing settlement of Bruichladdich and the open countryside to the south; the rising land on the south side of the hollow provides a physical barrier to the further extension of any development cluster at this location and would also provide topographical definition to the southern boundary of the settlement. The proposed low density development at this location would be neither prominent nor incongruous within the wider landscape setting, and would sit comfortably within this area of transition between a built up area and the open countryside, without setting a precedent for any further incursion of the settlement into the countryside to the south. This is reflected in the proposed enlarged settlement boundary for Bruichladdich as identified in the draft local plan.
(iv) Infrastructure and Servicing Implications:
The proposal includes for the provision of two new vehicular accesses onto the public highway; a single one to serve both dwellinghouses, and the other to provide a new access to serve Coultorsay Farm to the west. The Area Roads Manager has not objected to the proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to access geometry and visibility.
The proposal includes for the provision of a new septic tank and irrigation trench to serve both dwellings; water supply is to be by connection to the public water main.
There is an existing watercourse located within the application site; the original submission included for the culverting of a 45m section. The Scottish Executive’s Planning Advice Note 69 ‘Flooding’, and Scottish Planning Policy 7 ‘Planning and Flooding’ advise that existing watercourses should not be culverted unless there is no practical alternative. The application has subsequently been amended to take into account this advice, and it is now proposed that only a short section of the watercourse be culverted to provide vehicular access to one of the two plots.
(v) Effect on Conservation of Natural and Heritage Resources:
The application site does not include any land that is designated as important for the conservation of natural and heritage resources.
The existing watercourse is to remain unculverted in line with NPPG 14 advice which promotes watercourses as “both valuable landscape features and wildlife habitats” for which planning should “seek to safeguard their natural heritage value”.
(vi) Sterilisation of Natural Resources:
None.
(vii) Alternative Policies and Proposals Contained in the Local Plan:
None applicable.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 79
D. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR A ‘MINOR DEPARTURE’ TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The adopted development plan comprises the 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' 2002, and the ‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984 & First Review 1988, the latter now being substantially out of date. Policy POL HO 6 of the local seeks to restrict development within the settlement of Bruichladdich to sites specifically identified within the local plan. The current application site is located outwith the areas identified under POL HO 6 and therefore must be considered as contrary to the provisions of this policy.
The application site is located within the enlarged settlement boundary for Bruichladdich as identified within the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2003 consultative draft where STRAT DC 1 of the Structure Plan and draft local plan would encourage small scale infill, rounding-off and redevelopment. The ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ Consultative Draft was issued for public consultation purposes in the early part of this year and responses are currently being analysed with a view to issuing of the Finalised Plan in the early part of 2005. In this instance, no objections have been raised to the expansion of the settlement boundary to encompass the inclusion of application site and the zoning of this particular area is likely to remain unchanged in the finalised draft of the local plan.
E. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR A PAN 41 HEARING
Planning Advice Note 41 ‘Development Plan Departures’ recommends that Planning Authorities proposing to make decisions which conflict with the provisions of the approved development plan, should give consideration to the need to hold a hearing to enable an applicant and third parties an opportunity to appear before the committee making the decision. In this case, as there have not been any representations from the public, it is not necessary to hold a hearing in advance of making a decision.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401309BRUICHLADDICH0.DOC
Page 80
This page is intentionally left blank Page 81 Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank Page 83
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 06.07.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Date of Committee - 08.12.04
Reference Number: 04/01330/OUT Applicants Name: Mr. & Mrs. J. Brolly Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of dwelling Location: Plot 8, Torran Farm, Ford
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
Erection of one dwellinghouse (outline) specifying: • means of vehicular access • drainage arrangements by means of septic tank.
Other aspects of the development: • proposed connection to private water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons given in the report.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is an application for outline planning consent for a single dwelling, which forms one of a package of 4 applications recently submitted for individual house plots on an area of hill ground above Inverliever. Members will recall that the applicants have previously obtained permissions for 3 house plots lower down on the hillside, following a site inspection by the Area Committee. Elsewhere the applicant has obtained 5 consents for house plots in the vicinity of Torran and adjacent to Inverliever.
This site lies within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance defined by the Mid Argyll Local Plan and is subject to Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 where it requires to be assessed against specified criteria. In the context of the emerging draft Local Plan, the site lies within an area of ‘sensitive countryside’ where Policy STRAT DC 5 applies, where development can only be supported if it accords with an area capacity evaluation, demonstrating that it can be integrated sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
The site is situated in an elevated position on this hill within a conspicuous half bowl below the level of the farm access road from which it would be served. In this location the dwelling would be prominently situated within the context of high hill-land, seen not only from the local road at Inverliever, but also from across Loch Awe particularly in the autumn to spring months, as well as at any time from a boat on the loch or by hill walkers on the wild hill landscape that surrounds the loch. Policy STRAT DC 5 seeks to safeguard these upland areas from inappropriately sited developments. The draft plan identifies ‘rural opportunity areas’ at lower levels than the application site, where because of local landscape considerations, development opportunities are more easily found.
It is concluded that this particular proposal (Plot 8) both on its own, as well as with the adjoining proposed plots (6 and 7) reported separately elsewhere on the agenda would be seriously damaging to the quality of the area of local landscape significance protected by the adopted plan, and contrary to the emergent plan policy of protected designated ‘sensitive countryside’ from development which does not reflect the established settlement pattern, and which would be damaging to the landscape character of the area by suburbanising an essentially low density rural scene. In addition, the development of all three plots applied for, along with those previously permitted sites, would exceed the number of dwellings appropriately served from a private way, and would therefore be contrary to
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 84
POL TA 4 of the ‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’.
It should be noted that a further application submitted by the same applicant for a dwelling at Plot 9 Torran Farm (outside the Area of Local Landscape Significance) has recently been granted under the delegated Chair/Vice-Chair/Local Member procedure.
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning 19th November 2004
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person : Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 85
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01330/OUT
1. The proposal relates to an elevated location unrelated to established settlement pattern, where development is predominantly at lower levels related to the public road and where buildings on hillside locations are few in number and widely spaced. The proposal would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, which individually, and cumulatively with accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies POL RUR 1 and POL RUR 2 of the adopted Mid Argyll Local Plan which state that the Council shall resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact upon such areas, and contrary to Policy STRAT DC 5 of the emergent draft ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ which seeks to resist incongruous development within defined areas of ‘sensitive countryside’.
2. The proposal would represent an elevated and obtrusive form of development unrelated to the established settlement pattern, the visual impact of which would detract from the qualities of an area designated for its landscape qualities, and which contribute to the setting for Loch Awe. The proposal would, in the context of consents already granted in the immediate locality, and having regard to accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, lead to incremental development which would cumulatively lead to the suburbanising of an essentially rural scene. The development would be contrary to the advice give in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’ which seeks to ensure that new dwellings are successfully integrated into the countryside having regard to the settlement pattern established locally and the landscape character of the area.
3. The proposal would, in the context of consents already granted in the immediate locality, and having regard to accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, exceed the threshold set out in POL TA 4 of the ‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’, by virtue of the number of properties proposed to be served by a private way, and would be detrimental to residential amenity and road safety as a consequence of the inadequacy of the means of access to serve the total number of dwellings proposed.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 86
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01337/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Mid-Argyll Local Plan (1st Alt) 1989
Policy RUR 1 – the proposal is within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Importance within which “the Council will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact” ….and in this context is assessed against :
Policy RUR 2 – Proposals will be required to be justified against the following criteria : (a) environmental impact (b) locational/operational need (c) economic benefit (d) infrastructure and servicing implications
'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003)
Policy STRAT DC 5 – Development In Sensitive Countryside.
A) Within Sensitive Countryside encouragement shall only be given to small scale infill, rounding off, redevelopment …..(the proposal is none of these)
B) In special circumstances, development in the open countryside….may be supported if this accords with an area capacity evaluation which demonstrates that the specific development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern and that the development will entail or result in at least one of the following outcomes :
1. a small scale housing development which accords with the area capacity evaluation 2. a positive development opportunity yielding significant countryside management or environmental enhancement benefit, or building retention benefit or local community benefit or economic benefit 3. a development with a locational need
C) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith catergories A) and B) above and those with incongruous siting, scale and design characteristics or resulting in unacceptable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence.
‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’ (2001)
Policy TA 4 – limits new development served by a private way in mainland locations to no more than 5 dwellings (on the assumption that higher numbers of properties should be served by public roads, or a combination of a public road and private way(s).
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
No applications have previously been made for this particular site.
However, in the last 2-3 years 5 applications for individual dwellings have been approved elsewhere on this agricultural holding in appropriate roadside locations. In addition, following a site inspection, the Area Committee has previously approved 3 further applications for individual plots lower down the hillside than this current plot (02/01370/OUT, 02/01293/OUT and 02/01339/OUT granted 5/2/03)..
This application is being considered at the same time as two further applications for other plots nearby, reported elsewhere on the agenda (04/01335/OUT and 04/01336/OUT). A fourth application which does not share the same shortcomings as these three sites has recently been granted under the delegated Chair/Vice/Local Member procedure (04/01337/OUT).
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 87
(ii) Consultations
• Area Roads Manager (report dated 02.08.04): no objections subject to conditions.
• Environmental Health Officer (report dated 02.08.04): no objections, subject to a condition requiring proposed private water supply to be of appropriate standard prior to occupation. If this along with the other three applications are approved they would advise that a communal septic tank is considered to prevent a proliferation of individual tanks in this area.
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency: (letter dated 11.10.04): no objection.
• West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter dated 09.09.04): no objections. Although there are a number of highly important archaeological structures and feature in the vicinity, the landowner has already undertaken substantial earthmoving operations in the area which would appear to have compromised any previously undisturbed archaeological remains within the proposed development footprint. Consequently the proposals are unlikely to directly cause further damage to or destruction of unrecorded features.
• Dunadd Community Council (letter dated 01.09.04): understand that the people of Ford have no objections in principle to the housing proposed at Torran Farm, though some have expressed the view that with the number of houses proposed there, it will become an individual settlement in its own right. They have requested that the type of housing to be built is in keeping with the area, sympathetic to the surrounding countryside, without any “ultra modern type” of housing which would cause a blight on the landscape. Concerns were also expressed about the road if there were to be a large increase of daily traffic on it.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised as a ‘potential departure’ from the approved Development Plan. The period for any representations ended on the 03.09.04.
One letter of objection has been received from Davina C. Morses of Torran Cottage, Ford (dated 01.09.04).
Her comments are:
• Concerned about the amount of development which is being proposed around the small settlements of Inverliever.
Comments: I am of the opinion that this site whether developed on its own or in conjunction with the two adjoining sites would be contrary to policy and the landscape / settlement character of the area. This view has regard to the fact that three permissions were also granted lower down on this hill two years ago, and to Plot 9 which has been recommended for approval. It is not considered the landscape has further capacity locally for any other sites.
• Raises the question of why this and the related application sites need to be developed when the Council’s Plans already offer adequate development land elsewhere. This proposal combined with the other applications received by the applicant at the same time do not conform to the Council’s Plans enabling only single or small scale development in areas of countryside around settlements.
Comments: The Draft 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003) establishes Torran as settlement for the purposes of the plan and the proposed potential development area and the defined settlement boundary seeks to provide considerable development capacity at Torran itself which is a preferable location to the dispersed upland sites proposed.
• Concern is expressed about the rate of development being undertaken by Mr. Brolly in this small community, which could be for ever damaging to it. Mr. Brolly being the largest landowner in the area is unfairly cashing in on the current housing market boom.
Comments: The latter point is not a planning matter.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 88
(iv) Further Comments Expressed By The Applicants
The applicants, having become aware of the objector’s concerns, wish in response to express the following:
The proposed development is at Inverliever rather than Torran. The applicants are not the largest land owners in the area. They are not selling off most of the farm, the development area being less than 1% of their land. The lady has only lived within Torran for a few days, yet she is making a number of misleading and slanderous remarks. The communities of Ford, Torran and Inverliever are very much in favour of our proposals. The Torran Bay development will require 9 full time employees and 7 part time staff, and a large percentage will need housing. There are a large number of people wanting to live in the area but no available sites. If the dwellings on Plots 6 and 8 were faced in stone they would enhance the area. They are already overlooked by a ruin at a higher level.
(C) ASSESSMENT
Area of Common Landscape Character:
The application site lies within a rural setting to the north of the settlement of Ford within which built development is not a key feature of the landscape. The area of common landscape character is entered upon leaving the forested areas to the north of Ford and continues along the northern edge of Loch Awe up to the horticulture development at Inverliever, and includes Inverliever Lodge. To the west of the road, the landscape consists of relatively steep slopes that provide rough hill grazing, within this area there are rocky outcrops and clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Loch Awe lies to the east of the road with relatively narrow areas of improved grazing by the lochside, again this area contains rocky outcrops and small clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Key environmental features within the area include the distinctive hill fort Dun Toiseach, a standing stone at Torran and cairn by Inverliever, and the open fields which border An Loden.
Development within the area of common landscape character is restricted to two clusters, the first is located along the public highway in the vicinity of Torran Farm and the second cluster of development is focused along the public highway around the horticultural development at Inverliever. There is no built development in between the two existing clusters of development other than the ruins mentioned in the preceding section, although there are three unimplemented consents for dwellings on the same hill the subject of this application, above Inverliever. Beyond Inverliever there is a small traditional white croft house on rising ground and further on two further old stone houses which "fit” into the landscape. On the opposite side of the loch there are two traditional farm dwellings separated from each other and well related to the topography and existing tress which surround them. There is no other development evidenced within this area of common landscape character.
Capacity for Further Development within the Area of Common Landscape Character:
The capacity for further development within the area of common landscape character is extremely limited. In early discussions with the applicants, some 2 years ago, it was suggested that this area would have the potential to absorb successfully only 3 or 4 dwellings, located sensitively within or on the edge of existing development clusters. In order to have due regard to the established settlement pattern, it was considered that these would be expected to be situated on sites which relate to the public highway, and which would not give rise to an adverse impact upon the rural character or setting of the area. It was further suggested that dwellings proposed within the area of common landscape character should be restricted to properties which are single or 1½ storeys in height, and should be of a traditional design and finish. In the intervening time, the applicants have received permission for 2 dwellings at Torran, 3 dwellings at roadside/bottom of glen locations near Inverliever, and the 3 further dwellings granted lower down on this particular hill following a site inspection undertaken by Members.
One further site has recently been permitted elsewhere on this hillside (outside the area of Local Landscape Significance), and it is not considered that the immediate locality has further development capacity beyond this additional dwelling.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 89
The Current Proposal:
The current proposal is for outline planning consent for the erection of a dwelling within a plot high up the hillside within a half bowl in the landscape which is apparent from the local public road at Inverliever, and also from across the loch. By virtue of its elevation, the site lies within ‘sensitive countryside’ defined by the emergent local plan (unlike the earlier 3 consents which now lie within ‘rural opportunity area’). The fact that it has been so allocated in the emergent plan gives an indication of the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings.
I. Environmental Impact:
The proposed dwelling is to be located in an isolated elevated location, unrelated to the existing public highway system. In due time, if the permissions granted a couple of years ago are developed, the combination of this proposal in conjunction with them would produce too great a node of development in this upland location. This situation would of course be made even worse if the accompanying plots 6 and 7 were to be favourably considered. Development on this scale in an upland rural location would be contrary to the emergent plan policy of protecting designated ‘sensitive countryside’ from development which does not reflect the established settlement pattern, and would be damaging to the landscape character of the area by suburbanising an essentially low density rural scene. In addition, the development of all three plots applied for, along with those previously permitted sites, would exceed the number of dwellings appropriately served from a private way,
Taking all matters into account, including the 4 previous permissions, I consider that this application, along with the associated applications for nearby sites, should be refused, in line with adopted and emergent policy considerations, in view of the adverse effect such development would have upon the visual characteristics and amenity of the area.
It is my view that in the event that the current application for Plot 9 is granted as recommended, the area of common landscape will have reached capacity, and that development would be most appropriately accommodated within the newly defined settlement limits of Torran itself.
II. Locational/Operational Need:
No claim of locational or operational need has been submitted in support of the application.
III. Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
IV. Infrastructure and Servicing Implications
The proposed dwelling would be accessed via an improvement to an existing agricultural access served from the public highway. Water is proposed to be from a private source. Foul drainage would be by installation of a new septic tank and soakaway (no details submitted). Consultation responses have not indicated that there are any infrastructure or servicing constraints associated with the development of this site in isolation.
However, it has to be noted that this is one of a package of three applications for individual sites on nearby plots. There are currently four permitted sites served from a private way. Council policy will only support a maximum of five dwellings being served in this manner in mainland locations, on the assumption that larger scale development would warrant access being provided by means of a public road. The approval of all three sites for which approval is now being sought would increase the permitted number of dwellings to be served by this private way to seven in total which would not satisfy the requirements of Roads Policy TA 4.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401330TORRANFORDPLOT80.DOC
Page 90
This page is intentionally left blank Page 91 Page 92
This page is intentionally left blank Page 93
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 06.07.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Date of Committee - 08.12.04
Reference Number: 04/01335/OUT Applicants Name: Mr. & Mrs. J. Brolly Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of dwelling Location: Plot 7, Torran Farm, Ford
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
Erection of one dwellinghouse (Outline), specifying: • means of vehicular access • drainage arrangements by means of septic tank.
Other aspects of the development: • proposed private water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons given in the report.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is an application for outline planning consent for a single dwelling, which forms one of a package of 4 applications recently submitted for individual house plots on an area of hill ground above Inverliever. Members will recall that the applicants have previously obtained permissions for 3 house plots lower down on the hillside, following a site inspection by the Area Committee. Elsewhere the applicant has obtained 5 consents for house plots in the vicinity of Torran and adjacent to Inverliever.
This site lies within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance defined by the Mid Argyll Local Plan and is subject to Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 where it requires to be assessed against specified criteria. In the context of the emerging draft Local Plan, the site lies within an area of ‘sensitive countryside’ where Policy STRAT DC 5 applies where development can only be supported if it accords with an area capacity evaluation, demonstrating that it can be integrated sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
The site is situated in an elevated position on this hill above the half bowl where Plots 6 and 8 are proposed and on the opposite side of the farm access road from which it would be served. In this location the dwelling would be prominently situated within the context of high hill-land, seen not only from the local road at Inverliever, but also from across Loch Awe particularly in the autumn to spring months, as well as at any time from a boat on the loch or by hill walkers on the wild hill landscape that surrounds the loch. Policy STRAT DC 5 seeks to safeguard these upland areas from inappropriately sited developments. The draft plan identifies ‘rural opportunity areas’ at lower levels than the application site, where because of local landscape considerations, development opportunities are more easily found.
It is concluded that this particular proposal (Plot 7) both on its own, as well as with the adjoining proposed plots (6 and 8) reported separately elsewhere on the agenda would be seriously damaging to the quality of the area of local landscape significance protected by the adopted plan, and contrary to the emergent plan policy of protected designated ‘sensitive countryside’ from development which does not reflect the established settlement pattern, and which would be damaging to the landscape character of the area by suburbanising an essentially low density rural scene. In addition, the development of all three plots applied for, along with those previously permitted sites, would exceed the number of dwellings appropriately served from a private way, and would therefore be contrary to
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 94
POL TA 4 of the ‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’.
In addition to the aforementioned policy and landscape considerations, West of Scotland Archaeology Service have indicated that this particular plot is rich in archaelological interest, which could not be adequately safeguarded by way of an archaeological watching brief or a prior evaluation. Coonsequently their advice is that this application should, irrespective of other considerations, be refused on archaeological grounds alone.
It should be noted that a further application submitted by the same applicant for a dwelling at Plot 9 Torran Farm (outside the Area of Local Landscape Significance) has recently been granted under the delegated Chair/Vice-Chair/Local Member procedure.
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning 19th November 2004
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person : Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 95
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01335/OUT
1. The proposal relates to an elevated location unrelated to established settlement pattern, where development is predominantly at lower levels related to the public road and where buildings on hillside locations are few in number and widely spaced. The proposal would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, which individually, and cumulatively with accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies POL RUR 1 and POL RUR 2 of the adopted Mid Argyll Local Plan which state that the Council shall resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact upon such areas, and contrary to Policy STRAT DC 5 of the emergent draft ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ which seeks to resist incongruous development within defined areas of ‘sensitive countryside’.
2. The proposal would represent an elevated and obtrusive form of development unrelated to the established settlement pattern, the visual impact of which would detract from the qualities of an area designated for its landscape qualities, and which contribute to the setting for Loch Awe. The proposal would, in the context of consents already granted in the immediate locality, and having regard to accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, lead to incremental development which would cumulatively lead to the suburbanising of an essentially rural scene. The development would be contrary to the advice give in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’ which seeks to ensure that new dwellings are successfully integrated into the countryside having regard to the settlement pattern established locally and the landscape character of the area.
3. The proposal would, in the context of consents already granted in the immediate locality, and having regard to accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, exceed the threshold set out in POL TA 4 of the ‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’, by virtue of the number of properties proposed to be served by a private way, and would be detrimental to residential amenity and road safety as a consequence of the inadequacy of the means of access to serve the total number of dwellings proposed.
4. The proposal to develop a dwelling on this site, given the importance and density of the archaeological interest within and adjacent to it, would have a serious adverse impact upon the archaeology of the site and upon the setting and long-term survival of the nearby prehistoric marked stone, which is recorded as a Site of Archaeological Importance. The development would therefore be in conflict with Policy BE 1A of the Mid Argyll Local Plan 1985 (1st Alt. 1989), and Policy E6 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003), and the government guidance given in NPPG 5 ‘Archaeology and Planning’.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 96
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01335/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Mid-Argyll Local Plan (1st Alt) 1989
Policy RUR 1 – the proposal is within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Importance within which “the Council will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact” ….and in this context is assessed against :
Policy RUR 2 – Proposals will be required to be justified against the following criteria : (a) environmental impact (b) locational/operational need (c) economic benefit (d) infrastructure and servicing implications
Policy BE 1A – seeks to protect Sites of Archaeological Importance and their settings from developments which would give rise to a detrimental impact.
'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003)
Policy STRAT DC 5 – Development In Sensitive Countryside.
A) Within Sensitive Countryside encouragement shall only be given to small scale infill, rounding off, redevelopment …..(the proposal is none of these)
B) In special circumstances, development in the open countryside….may be supported if this accords with an area capacity evaluation which demonstrates that the specific development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern and that the development will entail or result in at least one of the following outcomes :
1. a small scale housing development which accords with the area capacity evaluation 2. a positive development opportunity yielding significant countryside management or environmental enhancement benefit, or building retention benefit or local community benefit or economic benefit 3. a development with a locational need
….(the proposal is none of these)
C) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith catergories A) and B) above and those with incongruous siting, scale and design characteristics or resulting in unacceptable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence.
Policy E 6 – Development Impact on unscheduled monuments, archaeology and historic landscapes
Development which adversely affects or undermines the historic, architectural or cultural qualities of the historic environment will be resisted.
‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’ (2001)
Policy TA 4 – limits new development served by a private way in mainland locations to no more than 5 dwellings (on the assumption that higher numbers of properties should be served by public roads, or a combination of a public road and private way(s).
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
No applications have previously been made for this particular site.
However, in the last 2-3 years 5 applications for individual dwellings have been approved elsewhere on this agricultural holding in appropriate roadside locations. In addition, following a site inspection, the
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 97
Area Committee has previously approved 3 further applications for individual plots lower down the hillside than this current plot (02/01370/OUT, 02/01293/OUT and 02/01339/OUT granted 5/2/03).
This application is being considered at the same time as two further applications for other plots nearby, reported elsewhere on the agenda (04/01330/OUT and 04/01336/OUT). A fourth application which does not share the same shortcomings as these three sites has recently been granted under the delegated Chair/Vice/Local Member procedure (04/01337/OUT).
(ii) Consultations
• Area Roads Manager (report dated 02.08.04): no objections subject to conditions.
• Environmental Health Officer (report dated 02.08.04) : no objections, subject to a condition requiring proposed private water supply to be of appropriate standard prior to occupation. If this along with the other ( 3 ) applications is approved they would advise that a communal septic tank is considered to prevent a proliferation of individual tanks in this area.
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter dated 12.10.04): no objection.
• West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter dated 09.09.04): raises serious objections, as follows:
The site was visited to assess the vulnerability of the known late medieval deserted settlement site and it can be confirmed that the proposal for this specific plot 7 would have an extremely serious deleterious effect on the former settlement site, and on the setting and long-term survival potential of the nearby prehistoric marked stone. Extant remains of buildings and enclosures occupy a majority of the plot, and these and any presently undiscovered features would be damaged or destroyed should the proposed development take place. In addition, a possible location for an unlocated but important pre-Reformation Holy Well or spring lies in the immediate area of this plot, and it may therefore be affected by the proposals.
National and Local Government policies for archaeology recommend that developments which would have an adverse effect on important archaeological sites should not be permitted unless there are exceptional reasons. Given the importance and density of the monuments in this application area, and the serious adverse impact that the new housing on the proposed site would have on the monuments and their landscape setting, I would recommend that this application be refused on archaeological grounds.
• Dunadd Community Council (letter dated 01.09.04): understand that the people of Ford have no objections in principle to the housing proposed at Torran Farm, though some have expressed the view that with the number of houses proposed there, it will become an individual settlement in its own right. They have requested that the type of housing to be built is in keeping with the area, sympathetic to the surrounding countryside, without any “ultra modern type” of housing which would cause a blight on the landscape. Concerns were also expressed about the road if there were to be a large increase of daily traffic on it.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised as a ‘potential departure’ from the approved Development Plan. The period for any representations ended on the 03.09.04.
One letter of objection has been received from Davina C. Morses of Torran Cottage, Ford (dated 01.09.04).
Her comments are:
• Concerned about the amount of development which is being proposed around the small settlements of Inverliever.
Comments: I am of the opinion that this site whether developed on its own or in conjunction with the two adjoining sites would be contrary to policy and the landscape / settlement character of the area. This view has regard to the fact that three permissions were also granted lower down on this
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 98
hill two years ago, and to Plot 9 which has been recommended for approval. It is not considered the landscape has further capacity locally for any other sites.
• Raises the question of why this and the related application sites need to be developed when the Council’s Plans already offer adequate development land elsewhere. This proposal combined with the other applications received by the applicant at the same time do not conform to the Council’s Plans enabling only single or small scale development in areas of countryside around settlements.
Comments: The Draft 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003) establishes Torran as settlement for the purposes of the plan and the proposed potential development area and the defined settlement boundary seeks to provide considerable development capacity at Torran itself which is a preferable location to the dispersed upland sites proposed.
• Concern is expressed about the rate of development being undertaken by Mr. Brolly in this small community, which could be for ever damaging to it. Mr. Brolly being the largest landowner in the area is unfairly cashing in on the current housing market boom.
Comments: The latter point is not a planning matter.
(iv) Further Comments Expressed By The Applicants
The applicants, having become aware of the objector’s concerns, wish in response to express the following:
The proposed development is at Inverliever and not at Torranr The applicants are not the largest land owners in the area. They are not selling off most of the farm, the development area being less than 1% of their land. The lady has only lived within Torran for a few days, yet she is making a number of misleading and slanderous remarks. The communities of Ford, Torran and Inverliever are very much in favour of our proposals. The Torran Bay development will require 9 full time employess and 7 part time staff, and a large percentage will need housing. There are a large number of people wanting to live in the area but no available sites.
(C) ASSESSMENT
Area of Common Landscape Character:
The application site lies within a rural setting to the north of the settlement of Ford within which built development is not a key feature of the landscape. The area of common landscape character is entered upon leaving the forested areas to the north of Ford and continues along the northern edge of Loch Awe up to the horticulture development at Inverliever, and includes Inverliever Lodge. To the west of the road, the landscape consists of relatively steep slopes that provide rough hill grazing, within this area there are rocky outcrops and clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Loch Awe lies to the east of the road with relatively narrow areas of improved grazing by the lochside, again this area contains rocky outcrops and small clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Key environmental features within the area include the distinctive hill fort Dun Toiseach, a standing stone at Torran and cairn by Inverliever, and the open fields which border An Loden.
Development within the area of common landscape character is restricted to two clusters, the first is located along the public highway in the vicinity of Torran Farm and the second cluster of development is focused along the public highway around the horticultural development at Inverliever. There is no built development in between the two existing clusters of development other than the ruins mentioned in the preceding section, although it should now be recognised that the Council a couple of years ago approved at committee 3 separate dwellings up this same hill the subject of this application, above Inverliever. Beyond Inverliever there is a small traditional white croft house on rising ground and further on two further old stone houses which "fit” into the landscape. On the opposite side of the loch two well separated traditional farm dwellings exist well related to the topography and existing tress which surround them. There is no other development evidenced within this area of common landscape character.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 99
Capacity for Further Development within the Area of Common Landscape Character:
The capacity for further development within the area of common landscape character is extremely limited. In early discussions with the applicants, some 2 years ago, it was suggested that this area would have the potential to absorb successfully only 3 or 4 dwellings, located sensitively within or on the edge of existing development clusters. In order to have due regard to the established settlement pattern, it was considered that these would be expected to be situated on sites which relate to the public highway, and which would not give rise to an adverse impact upon the rural character or setting of the area. It was further suggested that dwellings proposed within the area of common landscape character should be restricted to properties which are single or 1½ storeys in height, and should be of a traditional design and finish. In the intervening time, the applicants have received permission for 2 dwellings at Torran, 3 dwellings at roadside/bottom of glen locations near Inverliever, and the 3 further dwellings granted lower down on this particular hill following a site inspection undertaken by Members.
One further site has recently been permitted elsewhere on this hillside (outside the area of Local Landscape Significance), and it is not considered that the immediate locality has further development capacity beyond this additional dwelling.
The Current Proposal:
The current proposal is for outline planning consent for the erection of a dwelling within a plot high up the hillside within a highly visible site just above the half bowl where two other dwellings, Plots 6 and 8, (also reported on this agenda) are being proposed. All of this development would be apparent from the public road at Inverliever, and also from across Loch Awe. By virtue of its elevation, the site lies within ‘sensitive countryside’ defined by the emergent local plan (unlike the earlier 3 consents which now lie within ‘rural opportunity area’). The fact that it has been so allocated in the emergent plan gives an indication of the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings.
I. Environmental Impact:
The proposed dwelling is to be located in an isolated elevated location, unrelated to the existing public highway system. In due time, if the permissions granted a couple of years ago are developed, the combination of this proposal in conjunction with them would produce too great a node of development in this upland location. This situation would of course be made even worse if the accompanying plots 6 and 7 were to be favourably considered. Development on this scale in an upland rural location would be contrary to the emergent plan policy of protecting designated ‘sensitive countryside’ from development which does not reflect the established settlement pattern, and would be damaging to the landscape character of the area by suburbanising an essentially low density rural scene. In addition, the development of all three plots applied for, along with those previously permitted sites, would exceed the number of dwellings appropriately served from a private way,
Taking all matters into account, including the 4 previous permissions, I consider that this application, along with the associated applications for nearby sites, should be refused, in line with adopted and emergent policy considerations, in view of the adverse effect such development would have upon the visual characteristics and amenity of the area.
It is my view that in the event that the current application for Plot 9 is granted as recommended, the area of common landscape will have reached capacity, and that development would be most appropriately accommodated within the newly defined settlement limits of Torran itself.
II. Locational/Operational Need:
No claim of locational or operational need has been submitted in support of the application.
III. Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
IV. Infrastructure and Servicing Implications
The proposed dwelling would be accessed via an improvement to an existing agricultural access served from the public highway. Water is proposed to be from a private source. Foul drainage
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 100
would be by installation of a new septic tank and soakaway (no details submitted). Consultation responses have not indicated that there are any infrastructure or servicing constraints associated with the development of this site, although the provision of the connection to the public main would be at some expense.
However, it has to be noted that this is one of a package of three applications for individual sites on nearby plots. There are currently four permitted sites served from a private way. Council policy will only support a maximum of five dwellings being served in this manner in mainland locations, on the assumption that larger scale development would warrant access being provided by means of a public road. The approval of all three sites for which approval is now being sought would increase the permitted number of dwellings to be served by this private way to seven in total which would not satisfy the requirements of Roads Policy TA 4.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401335TORRANFORDPLOT70.DOC
Page 101 Page 102
This page is intentionally left blank Page 103
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 06.07.04 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Date of Committee - 08.12.04
Reference Number: 04/01336/OUT Applicants Name: Mr. & Mrs. J. Brolly Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of dwelling Location: Plot 6, Torran Farm, Ford
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
Erection of one dwellinghouse (outline) specifying: • means of vehicular access • drainage arrangements by means of septic tank.
Other aspects of the development: • proposed connection to private water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons given in the report.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is an application for outline planning consent for a single dwelling, which forms one of a package of 4 applications recently submitted for individual house plots on an area of hill ground above Inverliever. Members will recall that the applicants have previously obtained permissions for 3 house plots lower down on the hillside, following a site inspection by the Area Committee. Elsewhere the applicant has obtained 5 consents for house plots in the vicinity of Torran and adjacent to Inverliever.
This site lies within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance defined by the Mid Argyll Local Plan and is subject to Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 where it requires to be assessed against specified criteria. In the context of the emerging draft Local Plan, the site lies within an area of ‘sensitive countryside’ where Policy STRAT DC 5 applies where development can only be supported if it accords with an area capacity evaluation, demonstrating that it can be integrated sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
The site is situated in an elevated position on this hill within a conspicuous half bowl below the level of the farm access road from which it would be served. In this location the dwelling would be prominently situated within the context of high hill-land, seen not only from the local road at Inverliever, but also from across Loch Awe particularly in the autumn to spring months, as well as at any time from a boat on the loch or by hill walkers on the wild hill landscape that surrounds the loch. Policy STRAT DC 5 seeks to safeguard these upland areas from inappropriately sited developments. The draft plan identifies ‘rural opportunity areas’ at lower levels than the application site, where because of local landscape considerations, development opportunities are more easily found.
It is concluded that this particular proposal (Plot 6) both on its own, as well as with the adjoining proposed plots (7 and 8) reported separately elsewhere on the agenda would be seriously damaging to the quality of the area of local landscape significance protected by the adopted plan, and contrary to the emergent plan policy of protected designated ‘sensitive countryside’ from development which does not reflect the established settlement pattern, and which would be damaging to the landscape character of the area by suburbanising an essentially low density rural scene. In addition, the development of all three plots applied for, along with those previously permitted sites, would exceed the number of dwellings appropriately served from a private way, and would therefore be contrary to
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 104
POL TA 4 of the ‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’.
It should be noted that a further application submitted by the same applicant for a dwelling at Plot 9 Torran Farm (outside the Area of Local Landscape Significance) has recently been granted under the delegated Chair/Vice-Chair/Local Member procedure.
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning 19th November 2004
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person : Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 105
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01330/OUT
1. The proposal relates to an elevated location unrelated to established settlement pattern, where development is predominantly at lower levels related to the public road and where buildings on hillside locations are few in number and widely spaced. The proposal would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, which individually, and cumulatively with accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies POL RUR 1 and POL RUR 2 of the adopted Mid Argyll Local Plan which state that the Council shall resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact upon such areas, and contrary to Policy STRAT DC 5 of the emergent draft ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ which seeks to resist incongruous development within defined areas of ‘sensitive countryside’.
2. The proposal would represent an elevated and obtrusive form of development unrelated to the established settlement pattern, the visual impact of which would detract from the qualities of an area designated for its landscape qualities, and which contribute to the setting for Loch Awe. The proposal would, in the context of consents already granted in the immediate locality, and having regard to accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, lead to incremental development which would cumulatively lead to the suburbanising of an essentially rural scene. The development would be contrary to the advice give in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’ which seeks to ensure that new dwellings are successfully integrated into the countryside having regard to the settlement pattern established locally and the landscape character of the area.
3. The proposal would, in the context of consents already granted in the immediate locality, and having regard to accompanying applications for the development of nearby plots, exceed the threshold set out in POL TA 4 of the ‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’, by virtue of the number of properties proposed to be served by a private way, and would be detrimental to residential amenity and road safety as a consequence of the inadequacy of the means of access to serve the total number of dwellings proposed.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 106
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 04/01337/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Mid-Argyll Local Plan (1st Alt) 1989
Policy RUR 1 – the proposal is within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Importance within which “the Council will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact” ….and in this context is assessed against :
Policy RUR 2 – Proposals will be required to be justified against the following criteria : (a) environmental impact (b) locational/operational need (c) economic benefit (d) infrastructure and servicing implications
'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003)
Policy STRAT DC 5 – Development In Sensitive Countryside.
A) Within Sensitive Countryside encouragement shall only be given to small scale infill, rounding off, redevelopment …..(the proposal is none of these)
B) In special circumstances, development in the open countryside….may be supported if this accords with an area capacity evaluation which demonstrates that the specific development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern and that the development will entail or result in at least one of the following outcomes :
1. a small scale housing development which accords with the area capacity evaluation 2. a positive development opportunity yielding significant countryside management or environmental enhancement benefit, or building retention benefit or local community benefit or economic benefit 3. a development with a locational need
C) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith catergories A) and B) above and those with incongruous siting, scale and design characteristics or resulting in unacceptable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalescence.
‘Interim Development Control Policy Relating to Roads and Private Ways in Argyll and Bute’ (2001)
Policy TA 4 – limits new development served by a private way in mainland locations to no more than 5 dwellings (on the assumption that higher numbers of properties should be served by public roads, or a combination of a public road and private way(s).
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
No applications have previously been made for this particular site.
However, in the last 2-3 years 5 applications for individual dwellings have been approved elsewhere on this agricultural holding in appropriate roadside locations. In addition, following a site inspection, the Area Committee has previously approved 3 further applications for individual plots lower down the hillside than this current plot (02/01370/OUT, 02/01293/OUT and 02/01339/OUT granted 5/2/03).
This application is being considered at the same time as two further applications for other plots nearby, reported elsewhere on the agenda (04/01330/OUT and 04/01335/OUT). A fourth application which does not share the same shortcomings as these three sites has recently been granted under the delegated Chair/Vice/Local Member procedure (04/01337/OUT).
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 107
(ii) Consultations
• Area Roads Manager (report dated 02.08.04): no objections subject to conditions.
• Environmental Health Officer (report dated 02.08.04): no objections, subject to a condition requiring proposed private water supply to be of appropriate standard prior to occupation. If this along with the other three applications are approved they would advise that a communal septic tank is considered to prevent a proliferation of individual tanks in this area.
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency: no response to date.
• West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter dated 09.09.04): no objections. Although there are a number of highly important archaeological structures and feature in the vicinity, the landowner has already undertaken substantial earthmoving operations in the area which would appear to have compromised any previously undisturbed archaeological remains within the proposed development footprint. Consequently the proposals are unlikely to directly cause further damage to or destruction of unrecorded features.
• Dunadd Community Council (letter dated 01.09.04): understand that the people of Ford have no objections in principle to the housing proposed at Torran Farm, though some have expressed the view that with the number of houses proposed there, it will become an individual settlement in its own right. They have requested that the type of housing to be built is in keeping with the area, sympathetic to the surrounding countryside, without any “ultra modern type” of housing which would cause a blight on the landscape. Concerns were also expressed about the road if there were to be a large increase of daily traffic on it.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised as a ‘potential departure’ from the approved Development Plan. The period for any representations ended on the 03.09.04.
One letter of objection has been received from Davina C. Morses of Torran Cottage, Ford (dated 01.09.04).
Her comments are:
• Concerned about the amount of development which is being proposed around the small settlements of Inverliever.
Comments: I am of the opinion that this site whether developed on its own or in conjunction with the two adjoining sites would be contrary to policy and the landscape / settlement character of the area. This view has regard to the fact that three permissions were also granted lower down on this hill two years ago, and to Plot 9 which has been recommended for approval. It is not considered the landscape has further capacity locally for any other sites.
• Raises the question of why this and the related application sites need to be developed when the Council’s Plans already offer adequate development land elsewhere. This proposal combined with the other applications received by the applicant at the same time do not conform to the Council’s Plans enabling only single or small scale development in areas of countryside around settlements.
Comments: The Draft 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Consultation Draft 2003) establishes Torran as settlement for the purposes of the plan and the proposed potential development area and the defined settlement boundary seeks to provide considerable development capacity at Torran itself which is a preferable location to the dispersed upland sites proposed.
• Concern is expressed about the rate of development being undertaken by Mr. Brolly in this small community, which could be for ever damaging to it. Mr. Brolly being the largest landowner in the area is unfairly cashing in on the current housing market boom.
Comments: The latter point is not a planning matter.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 108
(iv) Further Comments Expressed By The Applicants
The applicants, having become aware of the objector’s concerns, wish in response to express the following:
The proposed development is at Inverliever not at Torran. The applicants are not the largest land owners in the area. They are not selling off most of the farm, the development area being less than 1% of their land. The lady has only lived within Torran for a few days, yet she is making a number of misleading and slanderous remarks. The communities of Ford, Torran and Inverliever are very much in favour of our proposals. The Torran Bay development will require 9 full time employess and 7 part time staff, and a large percentage will need housing. There are a large number of people wanting to live in the area but no available sites. If the dwellings on Plots 6 and 8 were faced in stone they would enhance the area. They are already overlooked by a ruin at a higher level.
(C) ASSESSMENT
Area of Common Landscape Character:
The application site lies within a rural setting to the north of the settlement of Ford within which built development is not a key feature of the landscape. The area of common landscape character is entered upon leaving the forested areas to the north of Ford and continues along the northern edge of Loch Awe up to the horticulture development at Inverliever, and includes Inverliever Lodge. To the west of the road, the landscape consists of relatively steep slopes that provide rough hill grazing, within this area there are rocky outcrops and clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Loch Awe lies to the east of the road with relatively narrow areas of improved grazing by the lochside, again this area contains rocky outcrops and small clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Key environmental features within the area include the distinctive hill fort Dun Toiseach, a standing stone at Torran and cairn by Inverliever, and the open fields which border An Loden.
Development within the area of common landscape character is restricted to two clusters, the first is located along the public highway in the vicinity of Torran Farm and the second cluster of development is focused along the public highway around the horticultural development at Inverliever. There is no built development in between the two existing clusters of development other than the ruins mentioned in the preceding section, although there are three unimplemented consents for dwellings on the same hill the subject of this application, above Inverliever. Beyond Inverliever there is a small traditional white croft house on rising ground and further on two further old stone houses which "fit” into the landscape. On the opposite side of the loch there are two traditional farm dwellings separated from each other and well related to the topography and existing tress which surround them. There is no other development evidenced within this area of common landscape character.
Capacity for Further Development within the Area of Common Landscape Character:
The capacity for further development within the area of common landscape character is extremely limited. In early discussions with the applicants, some 2 years ago, it was suggested that this area would have the potential to absorb successfully only 3 or 4 dwellings, located sensitively within or on the edge of existing development clusters. In order to have due regard to the established settlement pattern, it was considered that these would be expected to be situated on sites which relate to the public highway, and which would not give rise to an adverse impact upon the rural character or setting of the area. It was further suggested that dwellings proposed within the area of common landscape character should be restricted to properties which are single or 1½ storeys in height, and should be of a traditional design and finish. In the intervening time, the applicants have received permission for 2 dwellings at Torran, 3 dwellings at roadside/bottom of glen locations near Inverliever, and the 3 further dwellings granted lower down on this particular hill following a site inspection undertaken by Members.
One further site has recently been permitted elsewhere on this hillside (outside the area of Local Landscape Significance), and it is not considered that the immediate locality has further development capacity beyond this additional dwelling.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 109
The Current Proposal:
The current proposal is for outline planning consent for the erection of a dwelling within a plot high up the hillside within a half bowl in the landscape which is apparent from the local public road at Inverliever, and also from across the loch. By virtue of its elevation, the site lies within ‘sensitive countryside’ defined by the emergent local plan (unlike the earlier 3 consents which now lie within ‘rural opportunity area’). The fact that it has been so allocated in the emergent plan gives an indication of the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings.
I. Environmental Impact:
The proposed dwelling is to be located in an isolated elevated location, unrelated to the existing public highway system. In due time, if the permissions granted a couple of years ago are developed, the combination of this proposal in conjunction with them would produce too great a node of development in this upland location. This situation would of course be made even worse if the accompanying plots 6 and 7 were to be favourably considered. Development on this scale in an upland rural location would be contrary to the emergent plan policy of protecting designated ‘sensitive countryside’ from development which does not reflect the established settlement pattern, and would be damaging to the landscape character of the area by suburbanising an essentially low density rural scene. In addition, the development of all three plots applied for, along with those previously permitted sites, would exceed the number of dwellings appropriately served from a private way,
Taking all matters into account, including the 4 previous permissions, I consider that this application, along with the associated applications for nearby sites, should be refused, in line with adopted and emergent policy considerations, in view of the adverse effect such development would have upon the visual characteristics and amenity of the area.
It is my view that in the event that the current application for Plot 9 is granted as recommended, the area of common landscape will have reached capacity, and that development would be most appropriately accommodated within the newly defined settlement limits of Torran itself.
II. Locational/Operational Need:
No claim of locational or operational need has been submitted in support of the application.
III. Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
IV. Infrastructure and Servicing Implications
The proposed dwelling would be accessed via an improvement to an existing agricultural access served from the public highway. Water is proposed to be from a private source. Foul drainage would be by installation of a new septic tank and soakaway (no details submitted). Consultation responses have not indicated that there are any infrastructure or servicing constraints associated with the development of this site.
However, it has to be noted that this is one of a package of three applications for individual sites on nearby plots. There are currently four permitted sites served from a private way. Council policy will only support a maximum of five dwellings being served in this manner in mainland locations, on the assumption that larger scale development would warrant access being provided by means of a public road. The approval of all three sites for which approval is now being sought would increase the permitted number of dwellings to be served by this private way to seven in total which would not satisfy the requirements of Roads Policy TA 4.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\7\3\AI00015377\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0401336TORRANFORDPLOT60.DOC
Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank Page 111 Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank Page 113 Argyll and Bute Council Agenda Item 9 Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
Application Types: ADV App.for Advertisement Consent, ART4 App. Required by ARTICLE 4 Dir, CLAWUApp. for Cert. of Law Use/Dev. (Existing), CLWP App. for Cert. of Law Use/Dev. (Proposed), COU App. for Change of Use Consent, CPD Council Permitted Dev Consultation, DET App. for Detailed Consent, FDP Forest Design Plan Consultation, FELLIC Felling Licence Consultation, GDCON Government Dept. Consultation, HAZCON App. for Hazardous Substances Consent, HYDRO Hydro Board Consultation, LIB Listed Building Consent, LIBECC App. for Consent for ecclesiastical building, MFF Marine Fish Farm Consultation, MIN App. for Mineral Consent, NID Not. of intent to develop app., NMA Not. for Non-Materail Amnt, OUT App. for Permission in Principal, PNAGRI Prior Not. Agriculture, PNDEM Prior Not. Demolition, PNELEC Prior Not. Electricity, PNFOR Prior Not. Forestry, PNGAS Prior Not. Gas Supplier, PREAPP Pre App. Enquiry, REM App. of Reserved Matters, TELNOT Telecoms Notification, TPO Tree Preservation Order, VARCON App. for Variation of Condition(s), WGS Woodland Grant Scheme Consultation
Decision Types PER Approved WDN Withdrawn NOO No Objections AAR Application Required CGR Certificate Granted OBR Objections Raised PDD Permitted Development PRE Permission Required NRR New App. Required
17 November 2004 Page 1 of 8 Page 114 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/02193/TELNOT SSE Telecom 09/11/2004 16/11/2004 PRE
Port Askaig Substation Keills Port Askaig Isle Of Islay
Installation of an 18 element UHF Yagi antenna
04/02192/TELNOT SSE Telecom 09/11/2004 16/11/2004 PRE
SSE Port Ellen Substation Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7EP
Installation of 1 twelve element UHF Yagi antenna
04/02142/NMA Iain Montgomery 28/10/2004 08/11/2004 NOO
Leodamus Garden East Of 76 Frederick Crescent Port Ellen Isle Of Islay Details of garage relevant to consent 04/00321/DET - Erection of dwelling house
04/02108/CPD Argyll And Bute Council 21/10/2004 10/11/2004 PDD
Inveraray Primary School The Avenue Inveraray Argyll PA32 8YH Proposed internal alterations and ramp to comply with Disability Discrimination Act
04/02046/PNELEC Scottish And Southern Energy 13/10/2004 26/10/2004 NOO
Overhead Line To Mhorlach Southend Campbeltown Argyll
Erection of a 11kv overhead line
04/02035/COU Scottish Water 12/10/2004 01/11/2004 PER
Waste Ground Opposite Public Toilets Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll Temporaray use of land as contractor's site compound
04/02015/FELLIC Forestry Commission 07/10/2004 26/10/2004 NOO
Woodland Craighouse Isle Of Jura
Felling Licence to clearfell 50.42 hectares
04/02013/DET Fyne Homes Ltd 07/10/2004 04/11/2004 PER
Vacant Land Adjacent To 37 And 38 Ross Crescent Lochgilphead Erection of special needs dwelling house and associated car parking
17 November 2004 Page 2 of 8 Page 115 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/02008/DET M And K MacLeod Ltd 13/10/2004 12/11/2004 PER
Plot 5 Mount Pleasant Manse Brae Lochgilphead Argyll
Erection of detached garage
04/02000/PNELEC Scottish And Southern Energy 05/10/2004 25/10/2004 PDD
Overhead Line To Achahoish New School Achahoish Lochgilphead Argyll Undergrounding of part of 11 kv line
04/01995/PNAGRI Mr And Mrs J M Wade 04/10/2004 26/10/2004 NOO
Land South West Of Upper Cragabus The Oa Port Ellen Isle Of Islay Erection of new poultry house and feed barn
04/01958/NMA Mr And Mrs Trevor Davies 30/09/2004 08/11/2004 NOO
Low Peninver Farm Peninver Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QP
Amendment to extend gable by 1.5m and arrange garage access through gable end relevant to consent 04/01092/DET - Demolition of existing shed, erection of new bungalow, 04/01954/DET Mr And Mrs MacArthur 30/09/2004 28/10/2004 PER
Cairnbaan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YF
Erection of kitchen extension to dwelling
04/01953/DET John Stuart Irvine 30/09/2004 26/10/2004 PER
Heston Lochpark Carradale Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6SG
Replacement of existing roof
04/01947/NMA Robert Calder McMillan 29/09/2004 18/10/2004 NOO
Land Adjacent To Camus Na Gaul Clachan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XG Amendment to windows relevant to Consent 04/00359/DET - Erection of single dwelling
04/01909/DET Precept Programme Management Ltd 23/09/2004 22/10/2004 WDN
New Lochgilphead School Campus Land South Of Clock Lodge Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll Erection of combined primary and secondary school, formation of access and parking areas and formation of outdoor sports facilities
17 November 2004 Page 3 of 8 Page 116 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/01907/DET Mr And Mrs Angus Wilson 18/10/2004 12/11/2004 PER
Ederline Ford Lochgilphead Argyll
Extension to dwelling house
04/01899/DET M And K Macleod Ltd 20/09/2004 15/11/2004 PER
Plot 16 Barrmor View Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll
Erection of a dwelling house, access road and services
04/01894/DET Duncan Shaw 01/10/2004 04/11/2004 PER
Ben Dhuair High Street Bowmore Isle Of Islay PA43 7JE
Single storey rear extension to dwelling
04/01865/DET Cathy Cameron 16/09/2004 11/11/2004 PER
Plot 3 Land South West Of West Loch Hotel Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YF Erection of new dwelling house
04/01851/VARCO Mims Hotels Ltd 15/09/2004 04/11/2004 PER N White Hart Hotel 1 Charlotte Street Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7DG Variation of condition 3 to build wall within 6 months relevant to consent 04/00087/DET - (Replacement boundary wall and permanent siting of staff caravan), re-location of caravan 04/01816/DET Precept Programme Management Ltd 09/09/2004 22/10/2004 WDN
New Lochgilphead School Campus Land South Of Clock Lodge Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll Erection of a combined primary and secondary school, erection of new roundabout and associated ancillary works
04/01815/NID Argyll And Bute Council 08/09/2004 08/11/2004 PER
Campbeltown New Quay Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6ED Construction of extension to existing quay
04/01810/DET RIA Holdings 13/09/2004 28/10/2004 PER
Cowpark Plantation, Site South Of Oakdean, Kintarbert Forest Tarbert Argyll Creation of temporaray access for timber harvesting
17 November 2004 Page 4 of 8 Page 117 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/01806/DET RIA Holdings 13/09/2004 08/11/2004 WDN
Cowpark Plantation, Site North Of Upper Ashens, Kintarbert Lodge Tarbert Argyll Creation of temporaray access road for timber harvesting
04/01805/DET Mrs Jessie MacMillan 07/09/2004 25/10/2004 PER
46 School Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay PA48 7TW
Replacement of front and rear doors
04/01804/DET Port Ban Holiday Park 07/09/2004 03/11/2004 PER
Port Ban Caravan Park Kilberry Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YD
Change of use of land to provide 15 additional static caravan pitches, camping field, toilet block and septic tank. Retrospective consent for 6 static caravans within existing 04/01802/COU Mr And Mrs N.J Twinn 07/09/2004 29/10/2004 PER
Buidhe Lodge The Green Craobh Haven Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8UB Change of use to from guest house to dwellinghouse
04/01801/DET Evangeline Cameron 15/09/2004 01/11/2004 PER
9 Peddie Bank Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8JF
Installation of satellite dish to rear of building
04/01772/OUT Mr And Mrs James Wilson 03/09/2004 16/11/2004 PER
Land North West Of Home Farm Whitehouse Tarbert Argyll
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank
04/01749/MFF Crown Estate 01/09/2004 02/11/2004 NRR
Fish Farms At Rubha Riabhach And Port Fada Skipness Tarbert Argyll Marine fish farm - screening opinion consultation
04/01733/DET Fyne Properties Ltd 02/09/2004 18/10/2004 WDN
Land North Of Inverleckan, Powdermills Furnace Inveraray Argyll Erection of 5 dwellinghouses
17 November 2004 Page 5 of 8 Page 118 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/01731/DET Mr And Mrs Twinn 30/08/2004 28/10/2004 PER
Land North East Of Eileanan North Drive Lunga Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll Erection of a dwelling house
04/01714/DET West Highland Housing Association 30/08/2004 01/11/2004 PER
Land Adjacent To Amfasgadh West End Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Erection of 6 semi-detached houses
04/01696/OUT Tim Hedley 01/09/2004 22/10/2004 WDN
Old Water Works Site, Land South West Of Letter Daill Cairnbaan Lochgilphead Argyll Erection of new dwelling house and temporary siting of caravan
04/01688/DET Mr James Colville 24/08/2004 21/10/2004 PER
Land East Of Upper Ballywilline Farm Campbeltown Argyll PA29 6NX Proposed new dwelling house and installation of septic tank
04/01667/DET Anglo House (Scotland) Ltd 23/08/2004 04/11/2004 PER
Plots H,I And J Sound Of Kintyre Machrihanish Campbeltown Argyll Erection of 3 dwelling houses with private sewage treatment system - (Amended application to consent 03/02167/DET - Erection of three dwelling houses) 04/01626/OUT Donald McLean 17/08/2004 12/11/2004 PER
Land South Of Dun-Aluinn (Plot A), Port Corbert, Tangy Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll Erection of dwelling house, installation of septic tank and soakaway, and provision of access
04/01625/OUT Donald McLean 17/08/2004 12/11/2004 PER
Land South Of Dun-Aluinn (Plot B) Port Corbert, Tangy, Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll Erection of dwelling house, installation of septic tank and soakaway, and provision of access
04/01622/OUT Messrs Robert Millar 16/08/2004 28/10/2004 PER
Land North West Of Keprigan Southend Campbeltown Argyll
Erection of new dwelling house
17 November 2004 Page 6 of 8 Page 119 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/01516/COU Alan Smilie Campbell 24/08/2004 13/10/2004 PER
Knap House Kintyre Street Tarbert Argyll PA29 6UW
Conversion of store and part of dwelling to form a separate 2 storey dwellinghouse and erection of external stair
04/01406/DET M And K MacLeod 06/08/2004 25/10/2004 PER
Land North Of Erines Tarbert Argyll
Erection of 2 dwelling houses
04/01337/OUT Mr And Mrs Joachin Brolly 06/07/2004 20/10/2004 PER
Plot 9 Torran Farm, Land South Of Inverliever Lodge Ford Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RH Proposed new dwelling house
04/01328/DET Scottish Water 05/08/2004 10/11/2004 WDN
Land Opposite Victoria Terrace Chalmers Street Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll Installation of vehicular access lay-by to access pumping station, fencing and all ancillary development
04/01133/DET HBOS Plc 09/11/2004 WDN
Bank Of Scotland Church Square Inveraray Argyll PA32 8TZ
Alterations to premises to comply with Disability Discrimination Act
04/01132/DET HBOS Plc 09/11/2004 WDN
Bank Of Scotland Poltalloch Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8LW Alterations to premises to comply with Disability Discrimination Act legislation
04/00946/CLAWU Holidaypods Ltd 01/06/2004 04/11/2004 CGR
Tangy Tavil Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QD
Certificate of lawfulness for the use of land for the siting of a caravan for periodical holiday occupation throughout the calendar year 04/00825/OUT Angus A MacArthur 02/07/2004 14/10/2004 PER
Plot 1 Ballimony Portnahaven Isle Of Islay
Erection of one dwellinghouse
17 November 2004 Page 7 of 8 Page 120 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
04/00824/OUT Angus A MacArthur 12/07/2004 14/10/2004 PER
Plot 2 Ballimony Portnahaven Isle Of Islay
Erection of one dwellinghouse
17 November 2004 Page 8 of 8 Page 121
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
03/01443/ALT Mr And Mrs Reynier 04/08/2003 27/08/2003 25/10/2004 WARREF
Alterations to existing house with access to second floor stores by conventional stair case. Wester Ellister Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay PA48 7UE
03/01555/COU Mr N. James 22/08/2003 02/09/2003 25/10/2004 WARREF
Change of use of existing stable to flat and alteration to two flats Garage House Skipness Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XT
03/01992/AOW Education Department - Argyll And Bute Council 30/10/2003 03/11/2003 15/10/2004 WARAPP
Amendment to warrant 02/02000/ALT granted 13th March 2003 - Inclusion of cleaners sink to store, Community Centre Manse Brae Lochgilphead Argyll
03/02187/AOW Donald Fletcher 01/12/2003 04/12/2003 25/10/2004 WARREF
Change of Use of Byre to 3 dwellinghouses - Amendment to 99/00980/COU - change a proposed Persabus Port Askaig Isle Of Islay PA46 7RB
03/02256/ALT Duffie And Roberta MacNeill 12/12/2003 18/12/2003 25/10/2004 WARREF
Alterations to dining room to form new profiled metal roof covering Lochside Hotel Shore Street Bowmore Isle Of Islay PA43 7LB 04/00046/AOW M And K MacLeod 12/01/2004 13/01/2004 18/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 6 houses - Amendment to 03/00413/ERD granted on 24/4/03 - reinforced raft foundation to Land South Of Tyanna Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll
04/00534/ERD Paul Vincent Hathaway 17/03/2004 20/04/2004 19/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 7 apt. Timber framed single storey dwelling house Plot Adjacent To Nerabus Cottages Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay PA48 7UE 04/00759/ERD M And D Evans-Steele 15/04/2004 20/05/2004 09/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 6apt timber framed one and a half storey dwelling house Plot 1 Land North East Of Corranbeg House Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 1 of 9 Page 122
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/00859/ERD Mr D. Lavery 29/04/2004 27/05/2004 28/10/2004 WARAPP
TErection of new single storey timber framed 6 apartment dwelling house Land South Of Tangy Farm, Tangy Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll 04/00863/MTP Stewarton Village Hall Committee 30/04/2004 08/06/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations and extension to existing village hall to relocate kitchen and toilets Stewarton Village Hall Stewarton Campbeltown Argyll
04/00900/MTP Mr And Mrs A Cook 07/05/2004 24/06/2004 15/10/2004 WARAPP
Alterations and extension to a house
Sunnybrae Tarbert Road Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6NW 04/00948/ALT The Picture House (Campbeltown) Ltd 12/05/2004 15/06/2004 13/10/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to front elevation to remove glazed enclosure and replace with new glazed wall The Picture House Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6BU 04/01279/ERD Woodrow Construction (Islay) Ltd 25/06/2004 12/07/2004 02/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 6 apt timber framed single storey house
Plots 4 And 5 Hillside Phase 2 Gortonvogie Road Bowmore Isle Of Islay 04/01336/ERD M And K MacLeod 06/07/2004 19/07/2004 09/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 4 apt single storey dwelling house
11 Kilkerran Park Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6UG
04/01463/ERD Mr Peter Smith 22/07/2004 29/09/2004 21/10/2004 WARAPP
Change of use from shop to form single storey 2 apartment dwelling house Ford Village Shop Ford Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RH
04/01525/EXT Mr And Mrs Epps 02/08/2004 27/08/2004 27/10/2004 WARAPP
Single storey side extension to house to form utility room and sun lounge Tigh-A-Chuain West End Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay PA48 7TL
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 2 of 9 Page 123
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/01526/ALT Mr And Mrs R Rickman 02/08/2004 27/08/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to replace flat roof with pitched roof
Leargybreck Craighouse Isle Of Jura PA60 7XG
04/01577/ERC Messrs Robert Millar 09/08/2004 01/09/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of new agricultural shed - bedded court
Brunerican Farm Southend Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6RF 04/01591/ERD Mr And Mrs Colin Meikle 10/08/2004 30/09/2004 28/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 7 apt timber framed 1 1/2 storey dwelling house with detached garage and store and installation Land West Of Bruachan, Kilmichael Glen Kilmichael Glassary Lochgilphead Argyll 04/01637/ALT N Purdey And E Jamieson 19/08/2004 04/10/2004 03/11/2004 WARAPP
Alteration of existing dwelling
Carn House Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QN
04/01646/EXT Mr And Mrs A Dodd 20/08/2004 04/10/2004 15/10/2004 WARAPP
One and a half storey traditional built extension to dwelling and associated internal alterations. Riverside Kilmichael Glassary Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QL 04/01674/ALT Ian Smith 24/08/2004 13/10/2004 19/10/2004 WARAPP
Proposed attic conversion
6 Gallanach Lochgair Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8SD
04/01676/ERD M And K Macleod Ltd 24/08/2004 14/10/2004 01/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 4 apartment timber framed single storey dwelling house Plot 16 Mealdarroch Point Tarbert Argyll
04/01688/ALT Dr And Mrs Bijral 25/08/2004 14/10/2004 28/10/2004 WARAPP
Alterations and extension to doctors house
Doctors House Furnace Inveraray Argyll
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 3 of 9 Page 124
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/01705/ERD West Highland Housing Association 30/08/2004 16/09/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 6 semi-detached houses
Land Adjacent To Amfasgadh West End Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay 04/01708/EXT David Bankier 30/08/2004 15/10/2004 28/10/2004 WARAPP
Alteration to house to form studio extension
Eileanan Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QP
04/01729/EXT Mr And Mrs Ray MacIntosh-Walley 31/08/2004 16/09/2004 15/11/2004 WARAPP
Single storey traditional built flat roof extension to end terrace house to form single apartment 1 Wellpark Houses Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QF 04/01730/EXT D MacMillan 31/08/2004 29/09/2004 01/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of an extension to provide special needs accommodation to form hallway, en suite shower room 3 Coronation Terrace Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8NS
04/01738/EXT Dr Gavin Watson 02/09/2004 21/10/2004 15/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations and extension to form new dining kitchen, cloak room and entrance hall Ardlamont Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QR
04/01760/ALT Alice McPhail 03/09/2004 29/09/2004 15/10/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to front elevation to enclose porch and form new door Sonamarg Lady Ileene Road Tarbert Argyll PA29 6TU
04/01803/ALT Miss L. Wakeham 09/09/2004 16/09/2004 20/10/2004 WARAPP
Installation of level access shower tray and shower unit plus associated works for the benefit of a disabled Flat G/1 Witchburn Terrace Dell Road Campbeltown Argyll 04/01808/ALT Education Department 10/09/2004 13/09/2004 11/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to entrance, exits and toilets to upgrade for DDA provisions Ashfield School Achnamara Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8PX
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 4 of 9 Page 125
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/01823/ALT Sophie Button 13/09/2004 17/09/2004 19/10/2004 WARAPP
Alteration of rear porch of house to form utility room and toilet Canada View Clachan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XW
04/01825/ERD James Ross 13/09/2004 21/10/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 3 apt timber framed single storey dwelling house Vacant Land Opposite No. 1 Burnbrae Cottages St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll 04/01844/ALT Mims Hotels Ltd 15/09/2004 23/09/2004 20/10/2004 WARAPP
Construction of private manhole and connection to public sewer via public manhole and provision of White Hart Hotel 1 Charlotte Street Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7DG 04/01850/EXT Mr And Mrs Colin Fergusson 16/09/2004 22/10/2004 09/11/2004 WARAPP
Single storey traditional built extension to form living room with associated chimney Leckuary Farm Kilmichael Glassary Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QL 04/01851/ALT Mr And Mrs Steadman 16/09/2004 22/09/2004 03/11/2004 WARAPP
Conversion of byre and barn attached to existing dwelling house to form kitchen and lounge and form South Crossaig Skipness Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YQ
04/01882/ALT Property Services Manager 20/09/2004 23/09/2004 11/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to entrance/exits/toilets
Tayvallich Primary School Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll 04/01886/ERD Mr And Mrs J.R Hamilton 20/09/2004 10/11/2004 11/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of dwelling house
Garden Ground North Of Seaview St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll 04/01895/ALT Mr And Mrs S. Turner 21/09/2004 03/11/2004 09/11/2004 WARAPP
Alteratios to form new roof with attic bedrooms
Alderica Kilmichael Glassary Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QA
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 5 of 9 Page 126
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/01899/AOW Mr And Mrs M Taylor 22/09/2004 28/09/2004 19/10/2004 WARAPP
Removal of porch, erection of oil tank, render to gable elevations, wood burning stove, demolish existing Carnasserie Bungalow Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RQ 04/01940/ERC Jacqueline Shaw 29/09/2004 21/10/2004 27/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a rear unheated conservatory
38 Lime Craigs Road Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6JT
04/01950/ALT John Douglas Stewart 01/10/2004 21/10/2004 29/10/2004 WARAPP
Alteration to main bedroom to form en-suite shower room Dunstanburgh Minard Inveraray Argyll PA32 8YB
04/01961/ALT Argyll And Bute Council 01/10/2004 07/10/2004 01/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to school to form access ramps/accessible toilet etc Primary School Clachan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XL
04/01970/ALT Richard W.G Cameron 04/10/2004 06/10/2004 14/10/2004 WARAPP
Installation of 2 velux rooflights to roof area and alteration to cupboard to form toilet Aantalla Lochpark Carradale Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6SG 04/02005/AOW M And K MacLeod 08/10/2004 14/10/2004 15/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 27 houses and flats - Amendment to 02/01848/ERD granted on 13/3/03 - Plot 7 garage Land North West Of Crinan Basin St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll 04/02019/ALT Chris Brewer 20/10/2004 20/10/2004 27/10/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to form woodburning stove to reception area
Bridge House Hotel St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll PA30 8EW 04/02020/ALT D.M Hall 12/10/2004 19/10/2004 19/10/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to provide strengthening of upper floor by insertion of new steelwork (retrospective). Woodside Cottage Furnace Inveraray Argyll PA32 8XN
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 6 of 9 Page 127
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/02038/ALT Charles Alexander Ellis 14/10/2004 14/10/2004 14/10/2004 WARAPP
Installation of an oil storage tank for new central heating 39 Union Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8JS
04/02039/ALT Steven J. Gontarek 14/10/2004 14/10/2004 14/10/2004 WARAPP
Removal of interior chimney and relocation of bedroom partitions Carnasserie Cottage Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RQ 04/02048/ERC Fergus Murray 15/10/2004 15/10/2004 15/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of oil tank and installation of oil boiler with balanced flue 73 Argyll Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8NE
04/02067/AOW Mr And Mrs S Henderson 19/10/2004 21/10/2004 21/10/2004 WARAPP
Alteration and extension to house - amendment to warrant 03/00390/ALT granted 4th April 2003 - revised Victoria Hall Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll
04/02072/AOW Mr And Mrs Clark 20/10/2004 01/11/2004 02/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a garage and associated attic storage - Amendment to 04/00018/ERC granted on 24/2/04 - Adaem Cottage Crinan Lochgilphead Argyll
04/02076/ALT Education Department 21/10/2004 01/11/2004 02/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to form new WC, stairlift, alter partitions and form new entrance Inveraray Primary School The Avenue Inveraray Argyll PA32 8YH 04/02083/AOW M And K MacLeod 22/10/2004 01/11/2004 02/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 27 houses and flats - Amendment to 02/01848/ERD garnated on 13/3/03 - Plot 2 access to Land North West Of Crinan Basin St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll 04/02084/AOW M And K MacLeod 22/10/2004 02/11/2004 04/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 27 houses and flats - Amendment to 02/01848/ERD granted on 13/3/03- Plot 5 dining and Land North West Of Crinan Basin St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 7 of 9 Page 128
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/02086/ALT Mr And Mrs C B Hunter 22/10/2004 01/11/2004 02/11/2004 WARAPP
Install LPG stove with chimney liner and flue outlet to roof and gas supply feed pipe Mile End Glenburn Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll PA30 8EU 04/02109/ERC Iain MacPherson Jackson 27/10/2004 27/10/2004 27/10/2004 WARAPP
Erection of an oil storage tank.
14 Highbank Park Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8NL
04/02126/ALT Lawrence Allibone 28/10/2004 11/11/2004 11/11/2004 WARAPP
Alteration to kitchen - bedroom and hall door into lounge - removal of mullions to take new windows 3 Burnbank Cottages Drumlemble Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6PP 04/02146/ALT Education Department 01/11/2004 03/11/2004 15/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to form new ramp access, new WC to office area and new adapted WC to former cleaners School Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QF
04/02154/AOW Mr And Mrs A Paterson 02/11/2004 02/11/2004 04/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 4 apt timber framed single storey dwelling house with attached garage - Amendment to Plot B, Annieswell 2 Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll
04/02162/ALT Badded Farm Nursery 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to sub-divide activity area to nursery
Badden Farm Nursery Lochgilphead Argyll
04/02172/AOW M And K Macleod Ltd 04/11/2004 09/11/2004 09/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of a 4 apt timber framed single storey dwelling house - Amendment to 04/00832/ERD granted on 23rd Plot 12 A Pipers Road Cairnbaan Lochgilphead Argyll
04/02174/AOW M And K MacLeod 04/11/2004 04/11/2004 04/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 27 houses and flats - Amendment to 02/01848/ERD granted on 13/3/03 - Plot 2 -delete Land North West Of Crinan Basin St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 8 of 9 Page 129
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE
04/02182/AOW M And K MacLeod Ltd 05/11/2004 10/11/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Proposed dwellinghouse - amendment to warrant 02/01646/ERD granted 19th March 2003 - amendments Plot 5 Mount Pleasant Manse Brae Lochgilphead Argyll
04/02196/ERC William Cassidy 08/11/2004 10/11/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of on oil storage tank
3 Mill Cottages Slockavullin Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll 04/02204/AOW Campbeltown And District Juvenile Football Assoc. 09/11/2004 10/11/2004 10/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of Sports Changing Room - amendment to warrant 03/02252/ERC granted 27th January 2004 - Land Adjacent To Small Users Industrial Estate Bengullion Road Campbeltown Argyll 04/02205/ALT Mr Murdo McLarty 09/11/2004 10/11/2004 15/11/2004 WARAPP
Internal alterations to increase bathroom
32 D Barachan Place Argyll Street Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6AX 04/02243/AOW M And K MacLeod 15/11/2004 15/11/2004 15/11/2004 WARAPP
Erection of 27 houses and flats - Amendment to 02/01848/ERD - Plot 1 additional door to bathroom, Land North West Of Crinan Basin St Clair Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll 04/02248/ALT Mr And Mrs T Blue 15/11/2004 15/11/2004 15/11/2004 WARAPP
Alterations to front elevation to form patio doors to exempt class conservatory 44 Davaar Avenue Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6NH
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 17 November 2004 Page 9 of 9 Page 130
This page is intentionally left blank Page 131 Agenda Item 10
Argyll and Bute – Leading Rural Area Area Priorities
1.3 Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
WHAT – Specific HOW Lead officer / Objectives Enable Do it In Don’t do it Lead ourselves Partnership ourselves spokesperson – with – council influence contribution others
1.3.1 Ireland Ferry √ √ Dave Duthie / Cllr McKinlay
1.3.2 Carradale √ Dave Duthie Harbour / Cllr McKinlay
1.3.3 Bruichladdich √ √ Dave Duthie / pier Cllr McKinlay
1.3.4 Jura / Islay √ √ Stewart Turner / Ferry Cllr McKinlay replacement
1.3.5 Argyll √ √ Donald MacVicar Community / Cllr McKinlay Trust (formerly Mid Argyll Sports Trust)
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\5\9\AI00019953\MAKIAreaPriorities0.doc Page 132
This page is intentionally left blank Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160
This page is intentionally left blank Page 161 Agenda Item 12
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE OPERATIONAL SERVICES 8 DECEMBER 2004
PAPER AND CARDBOARD RECYCLING SCHEME – MID ARGYLL
1. SUMMARY
This report informs members of the Mid Argyll Paper and Cardboard Kerbside Recycling collection service scheduled to commence early March 2005.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The committee is asked to note the contents of the report.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 In July 2003 Argyll and Bute Council submitted a Strategic Waste Fund Bid (SWF) to the Scottish Executive which included a wide variety of projects, we hoped the Scottish Executive would fund to help meet the aims and objectives of the Argyll and Bute Area Waste Plan.
After a series of amended submissions at the Scottish Executive’s request, in August this year, the Scottish Executive announced Strategic Waste Fund Funding for a list of schemes which was reported to Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) on 7th October 2004.
Included in the award was money to allow the Council to proceed this financial year with a household kerbside recycling service for paper and cardboard in the Mid Argyll area.
It should be noted that Tarbert already receives a two bag kerbside recycling service from Campbeltown Waste Watchers (which is also part funded by the Strategic Waste Fund) which will continue unchanged.
4. DETAIL
4.1 The award by the Scottish Executive for long term funding until 2019/2020 for the approved scheme allows the Council to procure a newer mini refuse collection vehicle for this service and additional staffing to crew up the vehicle.
4.2 The Council has set up a small working group with representatives from the Council, Shanks, Group for Recycling Argyll & Bute (GRAB) and the Scottish Waste Awareness Group (SWAG) to take the scheme forward.
1 Page 162
4.3 It is intended to issue leaflets in January encouraging householders to participate in the scheme. Included would be an application, which the householder would send in to the Mid Argyll office requesting a paper and cardboard recycling bin (provided free by the Council).
A choice of two bin sizes will be available i.e. standard 240 litre or slightly smaller 180 litre size. The bin will include the Council logo along with a sticker on the lid to list the materials that should go into the bin. The bins will be midnight blue in colour.
Leaflets will be delivered and promotion of the scheme will be carried out in January with bin deliveries planned for the first two weeks in February and collections expected to start early March. The service will then be once every fortnight and householders will be advised of their collection day and frequency by issuing a letter/calendar with the bin.
The collections will be carried out by the Council and material deposited at Lingerton paper and cardboard recycling shed for onward recycling (or potentially composting) by Shanks.
4.4 A pilot trial for "survival" sacks is planned for one route i.e. Inveraray route, whereby householders can obtain separate small sacks each for textiles and cans. These would then be placed in with the paper and cardboard bin and Shanks would sort the materials at the Lingerton Recycling shed.
If this pilot is successful it is intended to make the survival recycling sacks available throughout Mid Argyll to increase the range of materials that can be collected at the kerbside.
4.5 The Scottish Executive have made it clear that Strategic Waste Funding has to be used for household waste recycling schemes only. The fact, however, that a domestic service will be carried out, will allow the Council to offer a commercial chargeable service to businesses for paper and cardboard. This would be similar to its wheeled bin paper and cardboard schemes on Mull and Islay.
The current commercial charges for paper and cardboard collections to businesses are approximately 30% less than the equivalent mixed waste charges as no landfill tax is levied. This will allow businesses throughout Mid Argyll to take up a paper and cardboard collection which is cheaper than the equivalent mixed waste volume charges.
5. IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Policy – The paper and cardboard recycling collections will offer improved recycling options in the Mid Argyll area. 5.2 Financial – Additional expenditure required to implement this scheme to householders is funded by Scottish Executive through the Strategic Waste Fund
2 Page 163
5.3 Personnel – Will result in the employment of two additional Council staff to carry out the collections. 5.4 Equal Opportunities – None. 5.5 Legal – Extra recycling will assist in meeting landfill diversion targets in respect of the likely imposition of landfill limits targets by Scottish Executive from 1st April 2005.
For further information, please contact :- Alan Millar, Principal Waste Management Officer (Tel 01546 604628) / Donnie McLeod, Area Roads and Amenity Manager, Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay (Tel 01546 604671)
Andrew R Law Director of Operational Services 15th November 2004
3 Page 164
This page is intentionally left blank Page 165 Agenda Item 13
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL ,KINTYRE AND OPERATIONAL SERVICES ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE AREA COMMITTEE 8 DECEMBER 2004
COMMUNITY DEVELOPED PLAY SPACE,KINLOCH GREEN CAMPBELTOWN
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The enhancement of recreational space is of value to both residents and visitors to the Campbeltown area and more widely to Argyll and Bute.
1.2 Community involvement in projects to enhance the environment is generally recognised as the way forward as it engages local groups and has scope to provide funding from external sources to facilitate such projects. Partnership working often being the key to success.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Recommendation is made that members support the proposal to formally close down the existing play area at Parliament Place, Campbeltown. This existing play area is no longer used and the play equipment is not worth repairing. 2.2 In line with the Council’s Policy on adoption of community developed play areas it is recommended that the current resource for insurance, inspection and maintenance be transferred to the play area at Kinloch Green, Campbeltown currently being refurbished by the Kinloch Green Playground Committee. 2.3 For further information it is intended that a report is prepared to update the audit carried out and report on in 2002. This report will incorporate proposals for planned works on all play areas within Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The policy agreed by Strategic Policy committee in June 2004 was intended to give support for community projects intending to create new and imaginative play areas.
Page 166
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 The enhancement of the Kinloch Green site will benefit the community and provide the Council with an improved asset to replace an existing site, which no longer provides any real play value due to its poor condition and location.
The enhancement of the Kinloch Green site offers play opportunities to a wider section of potential users as it is located in an open site.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy: Implements existing policy.
Financial: Requires reallocation of existing revenue resource.
Personnel: None
Equal Opportunity: None
For further information contact: Alison McIlroy, Horticultural Services Technical Officer
Telephone 01546 604605
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
16 November 2004
Page 167 Agenda Item 14 Page 168 Page 169 KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUPAgenda Item 15 held in COUNCIL CHAMBERS, TOWN HALL, CAMPBELTOWN on MONDAY 18 OCTOBER 2004 at 10.00 a.m.
Councillor Donald Kelly opened the meeting by welcoming and thanking everyone for attending. He extended a warm welcome to members of Dunfermline Car Club and Forestry Commission.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Maureen Macmillan, Roy Cartledge, Robert Millar, Ivor Watson, Les Howarth, George Lyon, Joan Inglis and Catherine Ralston.
2. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 23rd August 2004 were approved.
3. UPDATE ON INITIATIVES/PRIORITIES AND THEMES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Surfing – Councillor Rory Colville intimated that a meeting is due to take place on 11th November 2004 when the results of the survey that the Employability Team have done on Westport will be available.
New Quay – Councillor Donald Kelly advised that a public consultation had taken place four weeks ago and had been well attended.
Kite Fliers - Deirdre Forsyth intimated that the Kite Fliers Event would take place on the 6th/7th August 2005 on Kinloch Green with a Workshop taking place in the Victoria Hall. Linsay MacPhail to book the Victoria Hall for these dates. It was decided that Deirdre Forsyth and Jim Martin would meet up on the 3rd November to discuss the funding application. A contact has been made with a Gigha resident who is interested in selling kites on the day. Deirdre Forsyth will continue working with David Montague-Smith on this event.
Beechgrove Garden – Councillor Donald Kelly congratulated John Semple on the tremendous amount of work he had put into the making of the Beechgrove Garden in Campbeltown. John Semple stated that the weather had been wonderful and hoped that if the community continue to work on the garden the Beechgrove Garden team would come back in a few years time to review progress.
Motocross – Aileen Brown intimated that there has been a reorganisation of their Committee and subsequently fencing had been obtained enabling the track to be up and running. She saod it was hoped that a local championship could be held in the area attracting people from all over Kintyre.
Dunfermline Car Club – Councillor Donald Kelly welcomed members of Dunfermline Car Club and thanked them for attending and also for putting in so much hard work during their weekend visit. They then gave the Group an update on the position of holding a rally. Angela distributed a proposed schedule (copy attached to this minute) with Martin and Graham showing the route on a map. After discussion it was agreed that Dunfermline Car Club and the Forestry Commission should get together and discuss using the forest as an option for a rally. Margaret MacCallum and Brian Baird from the Forestry Commission informed the Group that they would be supportive of a rally using forestry commission ground.
Page 1 of 5 Page 170 Both parties left the meeting to discuss arrangements further. It was agreed that Angela would contact Councillor Donald Kelly with an update on the situation. Councillor Kelly thanked both Dunfermline Car Club and the Forestry Commission for attending the meeting and hoped that they could both work on a route.
Allan Muir then advised the Group that MOD would not allow Dunfermline Car Club to use Machrihanish for a car rally. After discussion it was agreed that Deirdre Forsyth would telephone Sandy Noble and explain the position of an article appearing in the local press about a potential rally.
4. UPDATE FROM MR. BRIAN KEATING (NEW GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT)
Councillor Donald Kelly welcomed Brian Keating and thanked him once again for attending another meeting. Brian Keating informed the Group that the plans had now been submitted to the Council for planning permission for the new golf course development. He intimated that all environmental studies were no complete which would be of benefit to SNH. He then gave the Group a detailed talk and showed them plans of the golf course. He advised that there would be an open day on Friday at the Royal Hotel when the plans would be on public show. He also advised that the Hotel would be closing for 6 weeks in November for refurbishment. Councillor Donald Kelly thanked Brian Keating for the update and advised that the local Members present could not comment on the plans as such. Mr. Keating informed the Group that his associate, Pearce Flynn, is very interested in taking on the Call Centre in Campbeltown.
5. SCOTTISH WATER REPORT
No report available but Councillor Kelly stated that he is in contact with Steven Greenhill and hopes that a meeting will be held in 2-3 weeks between Local Members and Scottish Water concerning the new proposals.
Odour – Councillor Kelly advised that complaints were still being received concerning odours in certain areas of Campbeltown. It was agreed that this is an issue which Scottish Water will need to address. Jacqui Middleton to follow up and report back at next meeting.
6. TOURISM/LEISURE INITIATIVES
No report available.
7. VESTAS REPORT/INITIATIVES
Councillor Alastair McKinlay stated that Les Howarth was currently in Denmark but would give an update on the current situation at Vestas at the next meeting.
8. FERRY INITIATIVES
John Semple intimated that a meeting had taken place with DBAG and Nicol Stephen on 7th September where various options were discussed and taken back to the Executive. An announcement should be made shortly.
Page 2 of 5 Page 171 9. AIRSHOW 2005
Derrick Lang advised the Group that Kintyre & Argyll Events were not yet in a position to apply for funding. It was agreed that Deirdre Forsyth would discuss this issue with Jim Martin when they met on the 3rd November.
10. FARMING REPORT/INITIATIVES
No report available.
11. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM COUNCIL SERVICES, JOB CENTRE PLUS, ARGYLL COLLEGE, JAMES WATT COLLEGE AND A.I.E.
Council Services – No report available.
Jobcentre Plus – No report available.
Argyll College – A report was circulated to the Group and is attached to this minute for information.
James Watt College – John Semple advised the Group James Watt College were starting a PC Passports Course, which is a Scottish qualification, which runs with NVQ’s. There will be Beginners, Intermediate and Advanced sections of the course and will be more detailed than the ECDL.
A.I.E. – Councillor Kelly advised that he has received a monthly report from A.I.E. showing the companies in the area which were awarded grants. This document was available to view by any Group member.
12. CAMPBELTOWN AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE ITEMS
a) Loganair Ltd – No report available.
b) Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd – Derrick Lang explained the monthly movements, which were circulated to the Group. A copy is attached to the minute for information. Derrick stated that Avgas would be available next summer at the Airport and talks are continuing with the MOD to be able to provide jet fuel. Councillor Donald Kelly stated that he was delighted to hear that Avgas would be available and felt that this was a positive step. Derrick intimated that the new fire training simulator is up and running and a valuable asset. A portacabin has been set up due to security measures being carried out at the Airport Terminal. It is hoped that this will be a temporary measure with an extension being added to the existing terminal some time in the future. A table top exercise into a potential emergency situation had been carried out recently at the Airport and had been thoroughly enjoyed by all who attended.
c) Defence Estates - Allan Muir advised the Group that Brian Keating’s plans would help the MOD encourage people to use Machrihanish. He intimated that bookings for exercises for 2005 looked very promising with 7 major exercises being held at Machrihanish.
Page 3 of 5 Page 172 13. INITIATIVES/PRIORITIES AND THEMES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.
None at present.
14. A.O.C.B.
Consultation on Proposed Service Provision of Air Ambulance Services from 1 April 2006 – This consultation paper had been sent out previously to the Group. It was agreed that the Group would give a written response intimating that they were supportive of the proposals but had reservations concerning moving the air desk to Farnborough.
Proposed Dates for Next Years Meetings – The list of proposed dates for next year are attached to this minute for information.
15. DATE OF NEXT MEETING – Monday 13th December 2004 at 10.00 a.m. in the Town Hall, Main Street, Campbeltown.
Page 4 of 5 Page 173
SEDERUNT SHEET
KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING WORKING GROUP
18 OCTOBER 2004
Name Organisation
Deirdre Forsyth Argyll & Bute Council Donald Kelly Councillor – Argyll & Bute Council & Chairman Alastair McKinlay Councillor – Argyll & Bute Council Derrick Lang H.A.I.L. Jim Martin Campbeltown Community Council Aileen Brown Campbeltown Courier M.A. Stewart A.C.V.S. Jacqui Middleton Argyll & Bute Council Rory Colville Councillor – Argyll & Bute Council John McAlpine Councillor – Argyll & Bute Council Margaret MacCallum F.C.S. Brian Baird F.C.S. Brian Keating Brightside Leisure Developments Limited Allan Muir Defence Estates John Semple CAKE Graham Provest Dunfermline Car Club Martin Luke Dunfermline Car Club/Scottish Tarmac Rally Championship Angela Luke Dunfermline Car Club Sheena MacAlister East Kintyre Community Council Donna McCrimmon C.G.S. – Work Experience Linsay MacPhail Argyll & Bute Council
Page 5 of 5 Page 174
This page is intentionally left blank Page 175 Agenda Item 16
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY COMMUNITY SERVICES: EDUCATION AREA COMMITTEE 8 DECEMBER 2004
SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS: 2005/2006
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The Strategic Policy Committee at its meeting on 6 May 2004 agreed the framework of main holiday dates for schools in 2005/2006.
1.2 These dates were then circulated to schools and school boards who were consulted about the inservice days and occasional day holidays to be incorporated into the agreed framework.
1.3 The final patterns of inservice days and school holidays have now been identified for all schools in Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay and these are outlined in appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to this paper.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Members are asked to endorse the final patterns of school holidays and inservice days for all schools in Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay as outlined in appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
2.2 Members are asked to agree that the details of schools holidays and inservice days for 2005/2006 should now be circulated to schools and all relevant organisations.
3. DETAIL
3.1 The Strategic Policy Committee at its meeting on 6 May 2004 agreed the main framework of school holiday dates for Session 2005/2006.
3.2 This framework was circulated to all schools and school boards. Head teachers were consulted about the five inservice days and school boards about the five occasional day holidays which were to be incorporated into the agreed framework of holiday dates.
1
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 176
3.3 As part of the process head teachers and school boards were asked to consult with other schools and school boards with the aim of achieving a consistent pattern of inservice days and occasional holidays in their area.
3.4 Following this consultation, responses from head teachers and school boards were submitted to Argyll House and the final patterns of inservice days and holidays were collated for consideration and endorsement by local committees.
3.5 The patterns of inservice days and holidays for all schools in Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay for school session 2005/2006 are outlined in appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 which are attached to this paper.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 Following consultation with head teachers and school boards about the incorporation of inservice days and occasional day holidays into the framework of main holiday dates agreed by Strategic Policy Committee, the pattern of school holidays for 2005/2006 has now been identified.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy: None
Financial: None
Personnel: None
Equal Opportunity: None
Legal: None
Douglas Hendry Director of Community Services 10 November 2004
For further information contact: Carol Walker, Head of Pre School and Primary Education, Drummore Education Centre, Soroba Road, Oban, Argyll PA34 4SB. Tel: 01631 564908
2
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 177
APPENDIX 1
COMMUNITY SERVICES: EDUCATION SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS 2005/2006
MAKI (Mid Argyll)
Lochgilphead High School Glassary Primary School Achahoish Primary School Inveraray Primary School Ardrishaig Primary School Kilmartin Primary School Ashfield Primary School Lochgilphead Primary School Craignish Primary School Minard Primary School Furnace Primary School Tayvallich Primary School White Gates School
TERM 1 16 and 17 August 2005 In-service days 18 August 2005 Pupils return 23 September 2005 School closes 27 September 2005 School re-opens 14 October 2005 School closes 26 October 2005 School re-opens 16 November 2005 School closes 17 and 18 November 2005 In-service days 22 November 2005 School re-opens 23 December 2005 School closes
TERM 2 09 January 2006 School re-opens 15 February 2006 School closes 16 February 2006 In-service day 21 February 2006 School re-opens 31 March 2006 School closes
TERM 3 18 April 2006 School re-opens 28 April 2006 School closes 02 May 2006 School re-opens 29 June 2006 School closes
3
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 178
APPENDIX 2
COMMUNITY SERVICES: EDUCATION SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS 2005/2006
MAKI (North Kintyre)
Tarbert Academy Clachan Primary Skipness Primary
TERM 1 16 August 2005 In-service day 17 August 2005 Pupils return 14 October 2005 School closes 31 October 2005 School re-opens 17 November 2005 School closes 18 November 2005 In-service day 21 November 2005 School opens 23 December 2005 School closes
TERM 2 9 January 2006 School re-opens 17 February 2006 School closes 21 and 22 February 2006 In-service days 23 February 2006 School re-opens 31 March 2006 School closes
TERM 3 18 April 2006 School re-opens 28 April 2006 School closes 2 May 2006 School re-opens 26 May 2006 School closes 29 May 2006 In-service day 30 May 2006 School re-opens 29 June 2006 School closes
4
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 179
APPENDIX 3
COMMUNITY SERVICES: EDUCATION SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS 2005/2006
MAKI (South Kintyre)
Campbeltown Grammar Dalintober Primary Carradale Primary Drumlemble Primary Castlehill Primary Rhunahaorine Primary Glenbarr Primary St Kieran’s Primary Gigha Primary Southend Primary
TERM 1 16 and 17 August 2005 In-service days 18 August 2005 Pupils return 13 October 2005 School closes 25 October 2005 School re-opens 17 November 2005 School closes 18 November 2005 In-service day 22 November 2005 School re-opens 23 December 2005 School closes
TERM 2 09 January 2006 School re-opens 17 February 2006 School closes 23 and 24 February 2006 In-service days 27 February 2006 School re-opens 31 March 2006 School closes
TERM 3 18 April 2006 School re-opens 28 April 2006 School closes 02 May 2006 School re-opens 29 June 2006 School closes
5
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 180
APPENDIX 4
COMMUNITY SERVICES: EDUCATION SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS 2005/2006
MAKI (Islay & Jura)
Islay High School Port Charlotte Primary Bowmore Primary Port Ellen Primary Keills Primary Small Isles Primary
TERM 1 16 and 17 August 2005 In-service days 18 August 2005 Pupils return 14 October 2005 School closes 25 October 2005 School re-opens 24 November 2005 School closes 25 November 2005 In-service day 28 November 2005 School re-opens 23 December 2005 School closes
TERM 2 09 January 2006 School re-opens 16 February 2006 School closes 17 February 2006 In-service day 27 February 2006 School re-opens 31 March 2006 School closes
TERM 3 18 April 2006 School re-opens 28 April 2006 School closes 02 May 2006 School re-opens 08 June 2006 School closes 09 June 2006 In-service day 12 June 2006 School re-opens 29 June 2006 School closes
6
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 181
APPENDIX 5
COMMUNITY SERVICES: EDUCATION SCHOOL HOLIDAYS AND IN SERVICE DAYS 2005/2006
MAKI (Kilchattan)
TERM 1 16 August 2005 In-service days 17 August 2005 Pupils return 14 October 2005 School closes 31 October 2005 School re-opens 23 November 2005 School Closes 24 and 25 November 2005 In-service days 28 November 2005 School re-opens 23 December 2005 School closes
TERM 2 09 January 2006 School re-opens 15 February 2006 School closes 16 and 17 February 2006 In-service days 21 February 2006 School re-opens 31 March 2006 School closes
TERM 3 18 April 2006 School re-opens 28 April 2006 School closes 02 May 2006 School re-opens 29 June 2006 School closes
7
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\1\0\AI00020013\SchoolHolidaysandInServiceDays0.doc Page 182
This page is intentionally left blank Page 183 Agenda Item 17 Page 184
This page is intentionally left blank Page 185 Agenda Item 18
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE
CORPORATE SERVICES 8 DECEMBER 2004
TARBERT SCOTTISH SERIES
1. SUMMARY
An application for funding has been received for support for the Tarbert Scottish Series from Tarbert Enterprise.
2. RECOMMENDATION
The Area Committee’s views are sought on whether and/or how this event could be supported.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Tarbert Scottish Series is the major sailing event in Scotland, and is second only to Cowes in Britain.
3.2 The Area Committee are not able to support this event because of the prudential capital grant rules, which prevent grants being made to projects which are not in the ownership of the Council, neither do they have a revenue funding budget except for the grants.
3.3 If the Area Committee gave a grant from their future development budget of 2005/2006 of the amount suggested (£7,500) which reflects sums given in previous years when there was a way of making an award from the capital budget, then support to the diversity of leisure groups throughout Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay would be greatly diminished. In any case that decision would not be made until May 2005, which is when the event takes place.
3.4 It is suggested that the major nature of the event puts it into the same league as Cowal Games and the National Mod, both of which are supported from a central budget, not an area budget.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\0\AI00020025\ScottishSeriesReport0.doc Page 186
4. IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Financial
Personnel
Equal Opportunities
Legal
Community
Deirdre Forsyth Area Corporate Services Manager
8 December 2004
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\2\0\AI00020025\ScottishSeriesReport0.doc