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
28 March 2007
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE will be held in the VILLAGE HALL, ISLE OF JURA on WEDNESDAY, 4 APRIL 2007 at 12:00 PM , which you are requested to attend.
Nigel Stewart Director of Corporate Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 7 MARCH 2007 (Pages 1 - 10)
4. MINUTES OF PLANNING HEARING OF 21 FEBRUARY 2007 (Pages 11 - 14)
5. NEW PASSENGER FERRY SERVICE TO JURA (VERBAL REPORT)
6. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
7. IDEAS PRESENTATION
8. DEVELOPMENT GRANTS (Pages 15 - 16)
9. PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Pages 17 - 108)
10. DELEGATED DECISIONS (Pages 109 - 130)
11. MINUTES OF MID ARGYLL PARTNERSHIP MEETING OF 20 FEBRUARY 2007 (Pages 131 - 136)
12. CAMPBELTOWN CONSERVATION AREA GRANT SCHEMES (Pages 137 - 138)
13. CAMPBELTOWN AND KINTYRE ACTION PLAN UPDATE (Pages 139 - 146)
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 paragraphs are:-
E1 Paragraph 1 Information relating to a particular employee, former employee or applicant to become an employee of, or a particular office-holder, former office-holder or applicant to become an office-holder under the authority
E2 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 14. ATTENDANCE MONITORING (Pages 147 - 158)
E2 15. LEASE OF ACCOMMODATION TO ARGYLL COLLEGE (REPORT TO FOLLOW)
MID ARGYLL, 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: Katie McKenzie 01546 604511
Page 1 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES of MEETING of MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 7 MARCH 2007
Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Bruce Robertson
Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Katie McKenzie, Area Committee Assistant Donnie McLeod, Roads and Amenity Service Manager Richard Kerr, Development Control Team Leader Ann Muir, Acting Service Manager Community Care (MAKI) Felicity Kelly, Area Community Education Learning & Regeneration Manager Roy Alexander, Estates Surveyor Fergus Murray, Development Policy Manager John Welsh, Acting Head Teacher, Tarbert Academy Chief Inspector Kenny Boyter, Strathclyde Police Ron Lilley, Scottish Ambulance Service John Ironside, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue
The Chairman ruled that the business dealt with at item 17 of this Minute be taken as a matter of urgency so that the recommendation, if agreed, could be implemented at once thus enabling the contract to commence.
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Rory Colville declared an interest in item 3, Continuation of Planning Application 04/01606/DET, because he had previously supported windfarms in Kintyre, and is a member of ALIenergy.
Councillor Bruce Robertson also declared an interest in item 3, Continuation of Planning Application 04/01606/DET as he is the Chairman of ALIenergy.
Page 2
3. CONTINUATION OF PLANNING APPLICATION 04/01606/DET
The Committee considered a report updating them on information arising since the Area Committee’s consideration of the application at the Local Hearing held on 31 st October 2006, and subsequent consideration given to the matter at the Area Committee of 24 th January 2007. There was lengthy discussion mainly concentrating on the “Waddenzee” case at the European Court and the effect that this case has on the Council’s decision. Richard Kerr explained that this case outlined the process to be followed in respect of planning applications affecting a “Special Protection Area”. He went on to say that his recommendation was for refusal on the following grounds:-
1. The windfarm is proposed in a location situated between established feeding and roosting grounds frequented by Greenland white-fronted geese, which support 8% of the over-wintering world population. The development area is in close proximity to Loch Garasdale, one of a suite of lochs forming the Kintyre Goose Lochs SSSI, which also forms part of the Kintyre Goose Roost Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The status of the site requires ‘competent authorities’ to have regard to the requirements of EC Directive 79/409/EEC, the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and advice given in Circular 6/1995. Having carried out an ‘appropriate assessment’ in terms of Regulation 48, the planning authority has concluded that the proposal will adversely affect the integrity of the designated site by virtue of the likely harmful effects on qualifying interests arising from risk of disturbance, and also the adverse consequences for the distribution of species within the site as a result of construction, operation and maintenance. It is also considered that the introduction of tall structures with rotating components will introduce significant risk to geese from collision during the operation of the windfarm. The vulnerability of the species to avoidable attrition, and the status of designations affording them protection, are such that inappropriate development presenting unacceptable risk of mortality should be resisted. It is not concluded that mitigation measures proposed, including the use of radar initiated shutdown of turbines to reduce the incidence of collisions, are sufficient to demonstrate with confidence that the integrity of the site is capable of being maintained should the development be permitted. The proposal would therefore have significant adverse implications for nature conservation interests of acknowledged importance, contrary to Policies STAT SI 1, DC 7 and RE 1 of the 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' 2002; to Policy RUR 3 of the ‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984; and to Policies ENV 2, ENV 3, ENV 5 and ENV 6 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Finalised Draft 2005. It would also conflict with Policies WF 2 and WF 9 of the Council’s non-statutory ‘Wind Farm Policy’ 1995, and with government guidance given in NPPG 6 (2000), NPPG 14 (2005), PAN 45 (2002) and Circular 6/95 (as amended).
2. The development proposed would be located on hill ground facing the west coast of Kintyre, where it would not share the locational advantages of previously permitted windfarm sites, which are located on the upland spine where they benefit form the shielding effect of topography and the moderating influence of distance from sensitive viewpoints. The application site more closely relates to the coastal margin, where, despite the moderating influence of intervening landform, it will by virtue of its scale and presence in the landscape, have a more prominent visual impact on the Page 3
skyline above the coastal edge, and would in turn have adverse consequences for the maintenance of landscape character. The impact of the development would be especially significant in terms of views towards Kintyre, such as those from the Isle of Gigha and from ferry routes. It would also be a significant intrusion in views from some southern parts of the Knapdale Regional Scenic Area, and from certain sections of the A 83 corridor where its presence would impinge on landscape character and have adverse consequences for the cumulative impact of windfarm development in Kintyre. The development by reason of its siting and scale would therefore give rise to adverse visual and landscape impacts, which would be contrary to Policies SI 1 and DC 8 of the 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' 2002; and to Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the ‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984 and the 'Mid Argyll Local Plan' 1985, which in particular, afford special protection to the Knapdale Regional Scenic Area, the West Kintyre Regional Scenic Coast, and the Gigha and West Loch Tarbert areas of local landscape significance. It would also be contrary to Policy ENV 10 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Finalised Draft 2005, and would conflict with Policy WF 1 of the Council’s non-statutory ‘Wind Farm Policy’ 1995, and with government guidance given in NPPG 6 (2000) and PAN 45 (2002).
He also read out a letter from SNH detailing their position in regard to reason 1 in the report.
There was a discussion about the visual impact of the development.
The Committee then discussed the legal advice regarding the remaining reason in the recommendation for refusal and expressed their dissatisfaction that the European Case effectively tied their hands, giving them no opportunity to grant the application.
Decision
The Committee agreed that the application should be refused for the reason set out at recommendation 1 in Supplementary Report No. 2 by the Head of Planning.
The Committee agreed that on the following grounds, reason 2 in Supplementary report No. 2 should not apply.
The visual impact of the development and its consequences for landscape character should be regarded as being acceptable and consistent with development plan policy for the following reasons:
1. Topography, tree cover and other landscape features help shield views of the development both from nearby communities and the main road serving Kintyre. Consequently, the impact of the development at close quarters from public viewpoints is generally restricted to partial or intermittent views. The height of the turbines has been offset by a reduction in the number of turbines from 19 to 7, which allows a higher degree of visual permeability between the turbines which are now widely spaced across the site.
Page 4
2. Despite its location above the coastal ridge, in medium distance views the windfarm will appear related visually to existing windfarm sites on the upland spine of Kintyre. Its presence will not therefore adversely impinge on the landscape character of the settled coastal margin or have any significant harmful consequences for the scientific qualities of the designated West Kintyre scenic coast.
3. In longer distance views of importance towards Kintyre, including those from Knapdale, Gigha and from ferry routes, the scale of the expansive horizon has the capacity to absorb the scale of this development without giving rise to overlapping or agglomeration with existing windfarm sites, without producing unacceptable cumulative impacts in key views and without windfarms becoming a defining characteristic of landscape character.
(Reference: Report dated 20 July 2006, Supplementary Report No. 1 dated 26 October 2006, Supplementary Report No. 2 by Head of Planning dated 19 January 2007 and Supplementary Report No. 3 by Head of Planning dated 23 February 2007, letter from Shepherd and Wedderburn dated 6 February 2007 and email from SNH dated 28 February 2007, submitted).
4. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 7 FEBRUARY 2007
The minutes of the meeting of 7 February 2007 were approved as a correct record.
Arising from item 4 it was noted that as Scottish Water were unable to attend any questions regarding the water supply at Machrihanish airport could be forwarded to them by the Area Corporate Services Manager. John Ironside then confirmed that there is a more than adequate supply available at the base for fire fighting. However, the issue about the adequacy of the main supply for Campbeltown being diverted to Machrihanish has still to be addressed by Scottish Water.
Decision
It was agreed that this question would be put to Scottish Water.
Also arising from item 4, John Ironside confirmed that Islay has had 79 chimney fires in the last 3 years and Strathclyde Fire and Rescue held a campaign on the island last September to raise awareness on how to prevent chimney fires and in the first 2 months this year there have only been 4, a reduction on last year.
5. AMBULANCE PRESENTATION
Ron Lilley, Operations and Support Services Manager for the south west of Scotland explained to the Committee that he has the lead role on the reduction/eradication of ‘on-call’ for the ambulance service. He explained that ‘on-call’ is when a member of staff works a full shift at the station and then takes the ambulance home overnight to enable them to respond to any calls from their house. To eradicate this a national board meet and review all area plans and there are both a local working group and a working team. One staff representative from Oban and one from Campbeltown, who experience ‘on-call’, are on the working team. Page 5
The demand for ‘on-call’ ambulance presence has increased over the years and now it can compromise day cover as staff can be off with fatigue if they have been called out through the night.
He then went on to explain to the Committee that a trial has just been completed whereby Arrochar and Inveraray crews alternate between day and night shift, working between them and although the report on this is not yet available Mr Lilley stated that during the trial the performance standard appeared to have improved.
Councillor Kelly stated that staff in Campbeltown had spoken to him as they were disgruntled with the shift patterns as they feel there is insufficient staff to meet the needs of the area and they do not want lives to be at risk due to lack of resources. Mr Lilley responded that he is confident he can work with the staff to resolve this problem although a total resolution would require doubling the number of full time staff at the station, he is sure an interim plan can be implemented until funding is identified.
Councillor Kelly then asked if is rural and urban areas were treated differently when allocating funding and Mr Lilley stated that it is equitable in terms of demand. Fewer resources are allocated to smaller settlements although there are a number of factors to consider such as the distance to complete a call.
Councillor Hay stated that she is concerned that in the winter months the road from Inveraray to Arrochar can be treacherous and if the ambulance is based in Arrochar it could take a long time to reach a call in Inveraray. Mr Lilley stated that they are looking into collacating with Strathclyde Fire and Rescue in Inveraray and are trying to improve the working lives of staff, not compromise lives.
Councillor Currie then advised Mr Lilley that he had met 3 people on the Islay ferry who were on their way to Oban but no patient transport had been arranged for them and they had been advised to get a taxi each to the hospital at a cost of £150 which would be reimbursed to them. Mr Lilley stated that a GP has to request patient transport and there has to be a medical need for it. It was agreed that Councillor Currie would contact Mr Lilley to discuss this further after the meeting,
Councillor Colville stated that in this area the air ambulance is highly valued but in some instances in Campbeltown a midwife is flown to Glasgow with a woman who is in labour and then has to make her own way home. Mr Lilley explained that they have to return escorts within a reasonable time but sometimes this is not possible and the escort has to make their own way home.
The Committee thanked Mr Lilley from coming and it was agreed to invite him back for an update in a few months time.
Page 6
6. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
The Chairman welcomed the new Chief Inspector, Kenny Boyter, to his first Area Committee meeting.
Councillor Hay asked Chief Inspector Boyter to reiterate the urgency for repairs to the A83 Tarbet to Kennacraig to Scotland TranServe as subsidence is causing lorries to almost go off the road. Chief Inspector Boyter stated that it is usually the traffic department that liaise with Scotland TranServe but he will pass the concerns on. It was also agreed to invite Scotland TranServe to a future meeting.
Councillor Currie then asked Ann Muir if she could provide a report updating Members on the IDEAS group on Islay and it was agreed this would be presented at the next meeting of the Area Committee.
7. DELEGATED DECISIONS
The Committee noted the decisions issued by the Head of Planning dated 16 February 2007.
8. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
06/02247/COU Maria Vicars Rosier. Change of Use. Use of part of an existing slaughterhouse site for the siting of a residential caravan for an unspecified temporary period. The Slaughterhouse, Craigard, Ballygrant, Isle of Islay.
Decision
That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report by the Head of Planning dated 15 February 2007.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning dated 15 February 2007, submitted).
9. PROPOSED SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA FOR BIRDS
Scottish Natural Heritage has invited the Council to respond to a proposal to designate a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA) under the European Union Habitats Directive, in respect of land to the south of Colonsay including the island of Oronsay. The Council’s views are to be forwarded to SNH who are undertaking the consultation process, the results of which will be sent to the Scottish Ministers.
Decision
The Committee agreed not to raise any objections to the proposed designations.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning dated 9 February 2007, submitted).
Page 7
10. OUTSTANDING SECTION 75 AGREEMENTS
The Committee considered a report identifying planning applications where the i ssuing of a decision has been delayed pending the conclusion of a legal agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Decision
The Committee agreed to continue these applications pending the agreements being finalised.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning dated 5 February 2007, submitted).
11. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO FINALISED DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
The Committee considered a report detailing a small number of Proposal Map changes in an effort to remove objections to the Finalised Draft Local Plan.
Decision
The Committee agreed:
1. To approve the proposed modifications of the Proposals Maps that have been subject to extensive negotiation with interested parties. 2. To recommend to the Council that the proposed modifications to the Proposals Maps be approved and subsequently advertised for a six week period to allow representations to be made. (Reference: Report by Development Policy Manager dated February 2007, submitted).
12. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LOCAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE
A new Local Transport Strategy (LTS) for Argyll and Bute has been under development in association with the Community Planning Partnership (CPP). A draft of the strategy has now been produced and comments are being sought by 16 th March 2007 in order to meet the timetable for adoption.
Decision
The Committee noted the production of the draft Local Transport Strategy.
(Reference: Report by Head of Transportation and Infrastructure / Head of Roads and Amenity Services dated 8 th February 2007, submitted).
Page 8
13. TARBERT ACADAMY ACHIEVEMENT REPORT
The Committee considered a report outlining Tarbert Academy’s major achievements in 2005/6, including the SQA examination results for pupils who sat examinations in May/June 2006.
Decision
The Committee agreed to note the strong performance of pupils and the commitment of staff in their examination successes and in the wider aspects of achievement across the school.
(Reference: Report by Acting Head Teacher, Tarbert Academy dated February 2007, submitted).
14. ISLAY HIGH SCHOOL SATURDAY LETTING PATTERN HOURS
The Committee considered a report seeking to amend the hours when Islay High School is available for let on a Saturday morning as part of the letting pattern.
Decision
The Committee agreed: 1. To suspend standing orders in order to discuss the report of the letting pattern at Islay High School . 2. That Islay High School will be available for let from 10am to 2.30pm on Saturdays as part of the letting pattern. (Reference: Report by Area Corporate Services Manager dated February 2007, submitted).
The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 9 and 13 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
15. LEASE OF ACCOMMODATION TO ARGYLL COLLEGE
The Committee considered a report outlining a request from Argyll College to lease two additional rooms on the first floor within the Kintyre Community Education Centre in Campbeltown. Felicity Kelly then explained to the Committee that the Principal Early Years Officer is going to look at the centre on Friday with a view to possibly relocating a local nursery there.
Decision
It was agreed to continue consideration of the report to the next meeting to allow the Principal Early Years Officer to view the centre, and to enable the Community Centre Council to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter.
(Reference: Report by Director of Corporate Services dated 5 March 2007, tabled). Page 9
16. FORMER ACHAHOISH PRIMARY SCHOOL
Following the relocation of Achahoish Primary School to a new site at Ormsary in October 2005, negotiations have been ongoing between the Council and Ellary Estates as to the disposal of the old school building at Achahoish.
Decision
The Committee agreed to the disposal of the Council’s title to the former Achahoish Primary School to Ellary Estates on the terms detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Director of Corporate Services dated 26 February 2007, submitted)
17. 06/00267/ENFOTH
Decision
The Committee agreed that enforcement action be taken as detailed in the report.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning dated 26 February 2007, submitted).
18. CAMPBELTOWN MUSEUM
The Committee considered a report detailing progress on and proposals for the ongoing storage and conservation of the Campbeltown Museum collection.
Decision
The Committee agreed -
1. To approve the actions taken to prepare the museum artefacts for the forthcoming redevelopment of the Burnet Building, and the continuing work involved in this.
2. To approve arrangements to transfer archaeological objects temporarily to Kilmartin House Museum for stabilisation and assessment, with the objects to be returned to Campbeltown Museum at the earliest possible date. 3. To approve the deaccessioning under Museums, Libraries & Archives Council standards of items deemed not relevant to the Campbeltown collection, with a view to disposal.
4. To arrange for local Members, along with representatives from Kilmartin House Museum and the Auchendrain Museum, to view museum artefacts at a date to be confirmed.
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Performance dated 6 March 2007, tabled).
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank Page 11 Agenda Item 4
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MINUTE of MEETING OF AREA COMMITTEE FOR MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY PAN 41 HEARING FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 05/01423/DET held on WEDNESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2007
Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor John Findlay Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Donald MacMillan
Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Development Control Officer Peter Bain, Development Control Officer Donnie McLeod, Area Roads Manager
The James Porter Applicant Robert White, the Agent
The Mr Pollard, Spokesman on behalf - Objectors Maggie Pollard Mr Peter Morrison Christine Brown Mrs A Hogben Diana Buller Richard and Mavis Gulliver C Ballantyne Allison Holyoake
Other members of the public were also in attendance.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Councillors Currie, McAlpine and Robertson.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
05/01423/OUT Mr James Porter. Outline planning permission. Site for erection of 4 dwellinghouse. Land at Imeraval Port Ellen, Isle Islay.
The Chairman commenced by introducing those present and explaining the procedure. Richard Kerr, Senior Planning Officer, then explained the reasons for the recommendation by the Director of Development Services and gave a policy overview.
This overview was interrupted several times by Mr Mitchell and Mrs Storrie who were not objectors to this application.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\6\1\AI00034161\PlanningMinute0.doc Page 12
APPLICANT
Mr White, Agent for the applicant, explained to the Committee that the ground is owned by Mr Porter and is on 2 crofts which would have to be decrofted should the application be approved. They are fairly large sites and would be fenced off and sold as serviced plots. Development is curtailed on the island due to lack of water but these plots have a private supply which was previously used for the old distillery and is more than capable of servicing the 4 plots.
He went on to explain that the first application for this site was made in July 2004 but was withdrawn in November 2004 after discussions with the planner as the local plan was going through consultation and it was agreed the application was premature. The application was then resubmitted in July 2005. The site is a flat area of ground, it has street lighting, is in the settlement boundary, will be served by a septic tank / soakaway system and has been surveyed by a archaeologist. He added that he would be happy to answer any questions about the application.
OBJECTORS
Mr Pollard started by asking What benefit this development would bring to Imeraval and its residents. He went on to say that Imeraval is a very scenic area and most residents have their main view towards the sea. There is no support from Imeraval residents for this and if this application is granted it will consume large quantities of energy, transport of materials and loss of amenity of land. He then asked what a percolation valve is. The agent for the applicant explained that a percolation test is carried out on a site to establish ground conditions. Water is poured into a hole which has been dug in the ground, and the time it takes for the water to soak away is the percolation value. This determines how big the soakaway has to be.
Mr Pollard explained that there are roadways and fences all over this field, a barn has been built, boring and drilling have been taking place and it is making the residents are suspicious that further developments could be planned.
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS
Councillor Hay stated that there seems to be a lot of new buildings around the site and asked how recently they have been built. The objectors stated that the last house built at Imeraval was 10 years ago and granting this application would change the whole community of Imeraval and give way to more houses being built in the area. Richard Kerr then stated to the Committee that this application must be judged on its own merits and they should not consider what applications may be submitted in the future.
At this point members of the public interrupted the Committee and stated that what is needed is affordable housing and remarked that these four plots would not provide that.
Councillor Kelly asked the applicant how much land he owned, if the land he was selling was all he had. The applicant stated that he owns 110 acres in total and he has chosen to sell this piece of land as it is not suitable to croft.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\6\1\AI00034161\PlanningMinute0.doc Page 13
Councillor Kelly then asked if this application was considered to be rounding off. Richard Kerr explained that in terms of the adopted Local Plan it could not be described as rounding off, but the land is shown in the new Local Plan to be within the settlement area for Port Ellen and so therefore suitable for development. This does not mean all the land within the expanded settlement boundary will be developed in the short term, but it means that a land supply can be maintained for the duration of the plan period.
Mr Mitchell interrupted again and was asked to let the Hearing continue.
Councillor Colville stated that he was aware feeling were running high over this application but urged that it this Hearing should not be a platform to discuss objections to the new Local Plan and suggested that if members of the public are unhappy with decisions made regarding their representations to the new Local Plan they should raise their concerns with the appropriate Officer.
He went on to ask for clarification of what is meant in the report by ‘high standard of design’. Richard Kerr explained that this means that the houses should be of modest size, single storey and of vernacular design and should have regard to the principles set out in the Council’s newly published design guidance.
Mr Mitchell interrupted and was asked to remain quiet.
Councillor Colville then stated that there is a lack of a public footpath on the road and asked if there were any plans to create one. The Area Roads Manager stated that this may be an option at some point in the future but there are currently a lot of larger settlements without footpaths.
Councillor Colville asked who would be responsible for ensuring the septic tank is cleaned out regularly and Richard Kerr stated that for a communal tank, it is now a SEPA requirement that there should be one nominated person responsible for it.
SUM UP
Planner Richard Kerr reiterated that this application is for a small scale development in an appropriate area, on the edge of an established settlement, within a boundary identified to accommodate future growth. There are no representations to the new Local Plan in respect of this area which require to be considered at the forthcoming Public Local Inquiry, so the application may be legitimately determined in the light of the uncontested elements of the new Local Plan, as a minor departure to the provisions of the adopted, but now significantly outdated, local plan.
Applicant Robert White stated that he lives in a small village himself and understands that feelings run high when new buildings are proposed but Islay is in need of new housing and the proposed plots are well screened and in an appropriate position.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\6\1\AI00034161\PlanningMinute0.doc Page 14
Objectors Mr Pollard stated that cattle and sheep have grazed in the field for at least 50 years and so he fails to see why it can not be crofted now. He questioned who would buy the new houses, stating they would most likely be bought as second homes, not by young people and families as affordable housing which is what is needed. The granting of this application will cause congestion, erosion of land and will cause a change in the skyline and a danger on the corners of the road. He stated that any new houses should be built in villages and not small communities like Imeraval. He concluded by stating that if this application is granted it will be followed by more houses being built in that area and should therefore be refused .
Councillor Findlay stated that over the past 10 years Port Ellen has missed out on housing development compared to the rest of Islay and part of the reason for this is due to the water constraints on the island. The fact that this development could connect to a private water supply is very much in it’s favour. The outline planning application for 4 houses is a very modest development of single story houses in an uncontested area designated for housing in the new Local Plan.
He went on to state that this application has his full support and as this is an outline planning application, concerns raised by objectors should be taken into account when applying for detailed consent.
DECISION
The Committee agreed to grant outline planning permission as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the Development Plan subject to: a. The standard outline conditions and reasons b. The conditions and reasons contained in the report by the Head of Planning dated 5 January 2007.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\6\1\AI00034161\PlanningMinute0.doc Development Grants 2007/2008
Education Development Grants Cost Centre Account Account Cost Centre Budget 07/08 E4104300000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS EDU - Education Development Grant - HQ 16,486 E4104301000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS EDU - Education Development Grant - Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay 19,150 E4104302000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS EDU - Education Development Grant - Oban Lorn & Isles 19,150 E4104303000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS EDU - Education Development Grant - Bute & Cowal 19,150 E4104304000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS EDU - Education Development Grant - Helensburgh & Lomond 19,150 93,086
Leisure Development Grants Cost Centre Account Account Cost Centre Budget 07/08 M3500001000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS - Leisure Development - Sports Development - MAKI 17,220 M3500002000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS - Leisure Development - Sports Development - OLI 17,220 M3500003000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS - Leisure Development - Sports Development - B & C 17,220
M3500004000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS - Leisure Development - Sports Development - H & L 17,218 Page 15 68,878
Social Welfare Grants Cost Centre Account Account Cost Centre Budget 07/08 S2030000000 43000 Payments to Voluntary Org'ns CS C&F - Social Welfare Grants 96,076 96,076
Sum 258,040 Agenda Item8
Sheet 1 Development Grants 2007-2008.xls Page 16
This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Agenda Item 9
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING ON 4 APRIL 2007
1. 06/02383/DET Scottish Water. Detailed Planning Permission. Erection of storm water treatment facility and ancillary development. Sewage Works, Slaty Farlan, High Askomil, Campbeltown.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons contained in the report.
2. 06/02602/DET Scottish Water. Detailed Planning Permission. Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber (no. 8) and associated vent pipe. Land to the South West of Slaty Farlan, High Askomil, Campbeltown.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason.
3. 06/02611/DET Scottish Water. Detailed Planning Permission. Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chambers (no. 6 & 7) and associated vent pipes. Land to the East of Fort Argyll and to the West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason.
4. 06/02347/DET Scottish Water. Detailed Planning Permission. Installation of generator, bollard and ancillary works. Pumping Station, Kinloch Road, Campbeltown.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons contained in the report.
5. 06/00526/MFF Mr. Alan MacDonald. Marine Fish Farm Consultation. Scallop Farm. Mealdarroch Point, Loch Fyne.
Recommendation
That the Crown Estate Commissioners be advised that the Council objects to the proposal for the reasons specified in the report.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\6\1\AI00034166\PlanningList0.doc Page 18
6. 06/02603/DET Mr and Mrs David Blair and Mr. Graham Blair. Detailed. Erection of two dwelling houses and garages and installation of septic tank. Land West of ‘Tigh Na Glaic’, Crinan.
Recommendation
That the application be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of Mid Argyll Local Plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons contained in the report.
7. 06/02659/DET Mr and Mrs Gordon Blair. Detailed. Erection of a dwelling house and garage and installation of septic tank. Land North East of Tigh Na Glaic, Crinan.
Recommendation
That the application be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of Mid Argyll Local Plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons contained in the report. In view of the absence of representations, a PAN 41 hearing is not required in this case.
8. 07/00322/DET Ormsary Farmers. Detailed. Erection of 8 dwelling houses, installation of shared biological treatment plant, and formation of sports pitch. Land around football pitch, Achahoish.
Recommendation
That the application be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the ‘Mid Argyll Local Plan’ subject to:
1) the applicants entering into a Section 75 Agreement in respect of off-site ‘affordable’ housing provision, as set out in section E of the report;
2) the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons contained in the report.
In view of the absence of representations, a PAN 41 Hearing is not required in this instance.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\6\1\AI00034166\PlanningList0.doc Page 19
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr Rory Colville PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 3rd November 2006 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 4th April 2007
Reference Number: 06/02383/DET Applicants Name: Scottish Water Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Application Description: Erection of storm water treatment facility and ancillary development Location: Sewage Works, Slaty Farlan, High Askomil, Campbeltown
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Installation of inlet chamber, CSO chamber, outlet chamber, 20m internal diameter concrete storm tank, outfall chamber and storm return screen; • Installation of 5m x 3m x 3m GRP kiosk; • Erection of retaining walls and re-profiling of site; • Erection of 2.4m chainlink security fence.
(ii) Other specified operations:
• Installation of below ground pipework, including outfall pipe to Campbeltown Loch.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal is one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. The objective of the overall scheme is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, in order to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown and uncontrolled overflow discharges into the harbour, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works. Within the scheme there are a number of elements that require express planning permission (mainly above ground works) as well as a significant elements which are ‘permitted development’ (below ground pipework and associated infrastructure, and sea outfalls).
This application relates to one element of the scheme, namely the extension of the existing sewage treatment works to allow for the collection and storage of storm flows to enable full treatment at the works. The proposal also includes for the provision of a combined sewer overflow (CSO) on the incoming storm main and from the storm storage tank, which would allow for very high storm flows to be diverted over a weir for direct discharge to Campbeltown Loch. This general approach is acceptable to SEPA, who will consent discharges separately under the Controlled Activities Regulations.
One objection has been raised by a solicitor acting for a local landowner, who does not consider that SEPA are likely to act in the best interests of his client. He has advanced reasons as to why he believes the scheme in its entirety ought to be subject to planning control, by virtue of the need for Environmental Impact Assessment. His position, which is dealt with at length in the report and appendices, is not accepted by officers or the Head of Legal Services.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 20
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 16 th March 2007
Author: Peter Bain – 01546 604082 Contact: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 21
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 06/02383/DET
2. Development shall not begin until details of the scheme of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include:
(i) existing and finished ground levels in relation to an identifiable fixed datum; (ii) existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; (iii) location and design, including materials, of walls fences and gates; (iv) soft and hard landscaping works, including the location, type and size of each individual tree and/or shrub – such details shall show the provision of screen planting to the southern shore side boundary of the site and for the replanting of the adjacent, landscape planting to the shore side of the main waste water treatment works site; (v) programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.
All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority no later than the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the development hereby approved and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority for a period of ten years. Any losses of plant species to be included in the landscaping scheme, through disease, weather exposure, neglect or damage, shall be replaced with equivalent species within one growing season.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping.
3. All existing trees and shrubs on the site shall be retained and no trees or shrubs shall be removed from the site without the prior written consent of the Council as Planning Authority. In the event of trees/shrubs dying or being the subject of windblow or, appropriate replacement trees/shrubs shall be planted within one planting season of the felling occurring, all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to help integrate the proposal into its surrounding landscape setting.
4. The total odour emissions from all sources shall be such that their combined contribution to the 3 th ambient atmosphere will not exceed 5 OU e/m hourly average, 98 percentile, above back ground levels, at and beyond the site boundary.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the neighbourhood.
5. Prior to work starting on site, full details of any external lighting to be used within the site or along its access track shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include full details of the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. For the purposes of this condition, any external lighting installations shall be designed to confirm with the criteria for Environmental Zone E2: Low district brightness areas , as specified in the Guidelines for the Reduction of Light Pollution published by the Institute of Lighting Engineers.
Reason: In order to avoid the potential of light pollution infringing on surrounding land uses/properties.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 22
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 06/02383/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 5 – Development in Sensitive Countryside – Seeks to resist development in the open countryside but would support small scale development on appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites and, in special cases development in the open countryside and medium or large scale development which has a locational need to be on or in the near vicinity of the proposed site may be supported where the development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984 and (1 st review and alteration) 1988
STRAT 3 – A presumption that development with a specific locational need shall be permitted in the countryside.
STRAT 4A – Sets out the criteria against which development in the Kintyre countryside will be assessed.
RUR 1 – Seeks to maintain and enhance landscape quality and in particular would seek to resist prominent or sporadic development within the Island Davaar and Beinn Ghuilean area of local landscape significance.
RUR 2 – Sets out the criteria against which development within an area of local landscape significance will assessed.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006
P/DCZ 5 - gives spatial expression to ‘sensitive countryside’ established by Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 5, thereby seeking to restrict development to small scale infill, rounding-off and redevelopment, and development with an over-riding operational/locational requirement. This disposition of ‘sensitive countryside’ has not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan process, and can therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which the Council will assess all planning applications. This policy has been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may not be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP CST 2 – Sets out requirements for development on the undeveloped coast (within the ‘sensitive countryside’ zone). This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP BAD 1 – In all development control zones developments classed as ‘bad neighbours’ will only be permitted if there are no adverse implications for residential amenity, appropriate measures are included to reduce impacts on amenity, and there are no transport amenity or technical standards objections. This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
Detailed planning consent Ref. 97/01516/DET granted for the erection of a new waste water treatment works at the subject site and formation of new access and landscaping. The layout of the proposed new waste water treatment buildings and the number of buildings involved in the
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 23
proposal were subsequently amended by a further submission ref. 00/01093/DET. The current application relates to land immediately adjoining this site.
It should also be noted that the current proposal relates to a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water in respect of improving the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Many of the elements, including underground pumping chambers, pipes and outfalls, do not require the benefit of express planning consent as they are exempted from control by the ‘permitted development’ rights applying to sewerage authorities. Scottish Water have consequently submitted applications for detailed planning permission at the various locations where express planning consent is required for a particular element of the scheme. For the purpose of clarity, the applications currently being considered are as follows:
06/02383/DET – Installation of storm tank and ancillary development - WWTW, Slaty Farlan.
06/02602/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 8 and associated vent pipe – Land to the South West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02611/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chambers 6 & 7 and associated vent pipes – Land to the East of Fort Argyll and to the West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02613/DET – Remedial works to sewer connection pipes 17-20 – Underground Pumping Station, Foreshore West of Springkell, Low Askomil.
06/02607/DET - Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 3 and associated vent pipe and remedial works to sewer connection pipes 1-16 – Low Askomil.
06/02612/DET – Associated vent pipe for air valve chamber 2 – Sea wall at junction of George St. and North Shore Street.
06/02347/DET – Installation of generator, bollard and ancillary works – Pumping Station, Kinloch Road.
It should further be noted that at the outset of this project, the scheme as a whole was the subject of a request by Scottish Water for a ‘Screening Opinion’ by the Council under the provisions of The Environmental Impact (Scotland) Regulations 1999. In the event a ‘Screening Opinion’ was issued in January 2006 confirming that the Council did not consider the scheme as a whole as one which would require to the be subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. This decision was of importance, for in the event that such an assessment had been required, the otherwise ‘permitted development’ elements of the scheme would then have been brought under planning control. In other words, the totality of the scheme would have needed to be the subject of a planning application.
(ii) Consultations
• Scottish Natural Heritage (received 21.11.06) – No objections.
• National Air Traffic Service (27.11.06) – No objections.
• Highlands & Islands Airports (27.11.06) – No objections.
• Area Environmental Health Manager (01.12.06) – No objections subject to safeguarding conditions in respect of odour and external lighting.
• Area Roads Manager (27.12.06) – No objections.
• SEPA (15.03.07) – No objections.
(iii) Publicity
The proposal has been advertised under Section 34 of the Act with an expiry date of 8 th December 2006. One representation has been received in the form of e-mail correspondence from Mr Barry Love of Semple Fraser LLP, 130 St.Vincent Street, Glasgow, submitted on behalf
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 24
of Mr Robert Wilson, Baraskomel Farm, Campbeltown. The points of representation are summarised as follows.
• Concern is raised with regard to the validity of the Council’s EIA Screening Opinion issued in January 2006 with regard to the overall scheme of works proposed by Scottish Water to augment the sewerage system within Campbeltown.
Comment: The submitted representation is both lengthy and complex. It does not lend itself to being summarised and it is therefore reproduced in full as Appendix A, along with the response from the Head Legal and Protective Services which is attached as Appendix B. Mr Love’s principal concern appears to be the anticipated number of overflow discharges into Campbeltown Loch from the treatment works, which he believes SEPA are likely to be prepared to consent. He therefore feels that there would be advantage in the scheme as a whole being examined by the Council as part of the planning process. In his opinion the Council misdirected itself when issuing a negative Environmental Impact Assessment ‘Screening Opinion’ in January 2006, thereby only retaining control over certain above ground elements of the scheme, and critically, not the outfall pipe. He believes that an Environmental Statement ought to have been required at that time, and failing that, the matter ought now to be re-evaluated by virtue of the lapse of time since January 2006.
The Council’s position is that the scheme as a whole did not require the benefit of an Environmental Statement and that the ‘Screening Opinion’ issued may be relied upon. It is not necessary to re-visit that decision by virtue of the passage of time, as the details of the scheme have not changed subsequently. (Scottish Water have latterly confirmed that the scheme does indeed remain the same as that considered by the Council in January 2006). Although it appears that Mr Love does not believe that SEPA will adequately safeguard his client’s interests when authorising discharges from the works, this is a matter of pollution control exercised by SEPA as regulator of the water environment, and not a land use planning matter. The Government’s NPPG 10 confirms that it is longstanding policy that planning controls should not duplicate other controls or be used to secure objectives achievable under other legislation. The CAR authorisation process which will need to be undertaken by SEPA is open to public comment, and Mr Love and his client will have the opportunity to address their concerns regarding discharges to the loch directly to SEPA as part of that consent process.
Planning Advice Note 51 (Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation) gives advice on how the spatial planning and the pollution control regimes should complement but not duplicate each other. It suggests that the planning system should address the general suitability of the location of the site in environmental terms and that consent ought not to be given if there is a likelihood that other environmental controls cannot be satisfied. It also indicates that SEPA should have regard as to whether the proposed development is likely to be capable of being consented under their licensing regime on the basis of what is known at the time of their response to a planning application consultation. Whether a license would or would not be issued would not be a material planning consideration, although whether a proposal would be ‘capable of being licensed’ would be.
“When a planning authority receives representations or objections on matters which are more properly dealt with under an environmental protection regime and which do not raise land use planning implications, it is unlikely that they will need to attach any weight to them” (PAN 51, Para. 52). It is also stated that in exercise of their own responsibilities, planning authorities can assume that environmental pollution bodies will exercise their responsibilities effectively. In the case of this scheme, SEPA are fully aware of Scottish Water’s intended response to Campbeltown’s sewerage problems. They have been consulted on this application and have not raised objections. The control over discharges from the scheme will be exercised by them and the Council has no reason to believe that they will not act other than in an appropriate manner in so doing.
• The current application should not be determined until such time as SEPA have issued a licence for the development in respect of the Controlled Activities Regulations.
Comment: As noted above, the planning system specifically seeks to avoid duplication and repetition of requirements associated with other legislation and other regulators. PAN 51 indicates that there will be advantage in respective applications being considered simultaneously,
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 25
but there is not an express requirement for planning and licensing consents to be issued in any particular sequence.
• That there are procedural errors in the neighbour notification that the applicant has undertaken in respect of the current proposal in that Mr Wilson has been served notification under both Article 8 and Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.
Comment: It is noted that Mr Wilson has received neighbour and ownership notifications in respect of more than one planning application. Neighbour notification in respect of Article 9 has been served where Mr Wilson owns land adjoining application; ownership notification has been served where Mr Wilson has an ownership/lessee interest in a part of the application site. It is the consideration of the Planning Department that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Article 8 and 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.
(iv) Assessment
The proposal is a detailed planning application for works which pertain to one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Within the larger scheme of works there are a number of elements that require express planning permission as well as a significant part of the scheme which is ‘permitted development’ by virtue of Class 43A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 relating to development relating to sewerage undertakings implemented by a ‘sewage authority’. The objective of the larger scheme of works is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, and to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown itself, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works.
The current application relates specifically to works to be undertaken on a site immediately adjoining the existing waste water treatment works (WWTW) at Slaty Farlan to the east of Campbeltown. The application site is located within the Island Davaar and Beinn Ghuilean area of local landscape significance and as such the current proposal requires to be assessed against the provisions of STRAT 4A, RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the ‘Kintyre Local Plan’. In respect of the emerging ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ the site is located within an area designated as Sensitive Countryside and the proposal requires to be considered against policies STRAT DC 5 of the Structure Plan and LP ENV 1, LP CST 2 and LP BAD 1 of the emergent Local Plan.
Environmental Impact:
The proposal relates to a 0.86ha area immediately to the east and adjoining the existing WWTW at Slaty Farlan. The application site is open to Campbeltown Loch to the south but is otherwise visually contained within the landscape by the topography of its immediate landscape setting. The structures to be installed do not significantly protrude above ground levels and will not be a prominent feature in the landscape relative to that of the adjacent WWTW building. Landscaping previously implemented on the shore side of the existing WWTW has failed, and it is the consideration of the Planning Department that this area be replanted as per the requirements of planning condition 2 relative to detailed planning permission ref. 00/01093/DET and extended to include a screen planting to the current application site in order to ensure that the visual impact of the current proposal upon the designated area of local landscape significance is minimal. Scottish Water have indicated their willingness to replant the failed area at such time as the current site is landscaped. The Area Environmental Health Manager has advised that the proposal does not include an external lighting plan and it is advised that an appropriate safeguarding condition is imposed in order to protect the amenity and appearance of this particularly dark area on the north shore of Campbeltown Loch.
The proposal principally provides for the collection and storage of storm flows within the Campbeltown sewerage system and for the return of these flows to the WWTW for full treatment. The proposal also includes for the provision of a combined sewer overflow (CSO) on the incoming storm main and from the storm storage tank which would allow for very high storm flows to be diverted over a weir for direct discharge to Campbeltown Loch. SEPA have not raised any objections in respect of the current proposal.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 26
In respect of the potential for odour nuisance, the Area Environmental Health Manager has advised that, given the storm tanks will receive more dilute sewage than the main works, the odour potential is less. Additionally, the tanks should not be kept full as captured flows will be returned to the main works for treatment. There is however the potential for storm sewage to be retained within the tank for considerable periods of time during prolonged adverse weather, and there is the potential for septic conditions to occur, giving rise to odours. This could however be adequately mitigated by planning condition. In respect of the potential for noise nuisance, the Area Environmental Health Manager has advised that the only mechanical plant associated with this proposal are the storm return pumps and tank mixers within the tank itself. These are not expected to give rise to significant noise emissions and the sewage treatment works is itself remote from noise sensitive land uses.
Locational/Operational Requirment:
The provisions of STRAT 5 and LP CST 2 allow for development with a locational/operational need to be supported within the ‘sensitive countryside’; the location of the proposed development is restricted by a requirement for compatibility with the existing sewerage infrastructure. The location of development adjacent to the existing WWTW is sensible in this respect and contains the potential ‘bad neighbour’ aspects of this type of development to a single location.
Economic Benefit:
Implementation the wider scheme of works will result in a reduction of the flood risk which affects large parts of Campbeltown and, through the management of storm flows, will remove a significant constraint in respect of allowing the provision of public sewerage connections to serve a substantial amount of new development within the settlement and surrounds.
Infrastructure and Servicing Implications:
The site will be serviced by an existing private access road; the Area Roads Manager has not raised any objections to the proposal.
Implementation of the proposal will result in an improvement to the existing sewerage system within Campbeltown.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 27
APPENDIX A – Representations submitted by e-mail on behalf of Mr R. Wilson, Baraskomel Farm
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 December 2006 15:53 To: Kerr, Richard Subject: Robert Wilson - Baraskomel Farm - Planning
We had correspondence earlier in the year (our respective letters of 24th March and 11th April refer, along with our email exchanges of 19th and 20th April) in relation to the changes to the Campbeltown WwTW infrastructure, and the expected impact it would have upon Robert Wilson and Baraskomel Farm. At that stage, however, no planning application for the above-ground elements had been submitted.
Mr Wilson has now received various neighbour notification notices from Scottish Water Solutions in relation to what appear to be separate parts of the overall larger scheme. These relate to:
(a) The reprofiling of land, installation of air valve chambers 6 and 7 and associated vent pipes at land to the east of Fort Argyll Road and to the west of Slaty Farlan WwTW, Campbeltown (b) The reprofiling of land, installation of air valve chamber 8 and associated vent pipe at land to the east of Fort Argyll Road and to the south west of Slaty Farlan WwTW, Campbeltown (c) Proposed Storm Treatment Facility and all ancillary development at Slaty Farlan WwTW, Campbeltown.
Mr Wilson has been invited in terms of the neighbour notifications to make representations to the Mid Argyll office in Ardrishaig, and I would be obliged if the Council could treat this communication as being written representations in terms thereof. We are regarding the above 3 applications as being constituent parts of a single project, and the representations accordingly apply to the whole project (and, by extension, to all of its parts).
The general background to matters is that Mr Wilson, like many people in Campbeltown, would wish to see Scottish Water investing in infrastructure improvements which are in accordance with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, rather than trying to railroad through half-measures which consist of little more than re-locating a sewage outfall. Campbeltown desperately needs a fully compliant urban wastewater system. Yes, that will be expensive. So be it. That is exactly why so much public money has been invested in Scottish Water. It is a legal obligation that must be achieved, simple as that. Half-measures are simply a waste of public money. Half measures which ignore the need for secondary treatment and permit scores of discharges of raw sewage each year are little more than an embarrassment. Many local people are very concerned about the relevant public bodies taking approaches which may allow this to happen, and there is a very strong feeling that the environmental impact of the proposals has been seriously underestimated, and that EIA is appropriate. It is therefore concerning to say the least that the Council has already played its part in this depressing state of affairs by virtue of the screening opinion which it issued earlier this year (of which more below). It is also of particular concern to Mr Wilson to avoid any repetition of the various problems which ensued when Scottish Water constructed the existing Slaty Farlan WwTW several years ago, including the issue of the illegal waste deposits left on site, and about which the Council has effectively washed its hands.
Against that background, the specific representations are as follows:
(1) The Council issued a screening opinion as long ago as 16th January 2006 in response to a document from Scottish Water Solutions dated November 2005. It is therefore inappropriate for the Council to assume that the EIA considerations
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 28
applicable to the project as at December 2006 are suitably addressed in a document prepared more than a year ago. The Council must therefore require Scottish Water to update their document in support of their request for a screening opinion.
(2) It is also worth pointing out that the Developer misunderstood the category under the EIA regulations which applied. The Developer indicated that the development might fall, inter alia , within category 10(l) under Schedule 2 to the EIA ( Scotland) Regulations 1999. In the event, it appears that the Council disagreed that the project fell within category 10(l), and your Screening Opinion indicates that the second relevant category within Schedule 2 (in addition to 11(c)) is 10(h), which was not mentioned by the Developer. It is therefore to be doubted whether the documentation submitted by the Developer can be regarded as satisfactory when there was no agreement between the Developer and the Council about what category was relevant.
(3) We are not satisfied that the Council, in reaching its original screening opinion, directed itself correctly. According to Circular 15/1999,
"The impact of flood relief works is especially dependent upon the nature of the location and the potential effects on the surrounding ecology and hydrology. Schemes for which the area of the works would exceed five hectares or more than 2 km long would normally require EIA ." In this case, the pipeline IS greater than 2.5km, and we would therefore expect to see, within the screening opinion, "chapter and verse" as to exactly why the Council felt able to overcome that presumption. The explanation which you previously provided on this is, with respect, very weak and unconvincing.
(4) It is entirely inappropriate for the Council to "net off" environmental impact with longer term environmental benefits. While it is accepted that the current pollution of Campbeltown Loch from the existing WwTW poses environmental hazards, and that fewer storm overflow discharges would be better than the status quo, that simplistic approach is not the correct approach. The fact remains that Scottish Water's proposals are extremely controversial and are understood to involve up to 100 anticipated discharges of untreated sewage each year. This is illegal under European law and likely to result in Scotland/the UKfacing infringement proceedings for breach of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It is therefore inappropriate for the Council to play any part in consenting to such a project. The Council is a public body and is under a legal duty not to collude in or facilitate in any way a scheme which could cause the United Kingdomto be in breach of its obligations under European law. Moreover, both elected members and planning officials would require to tread very carefully in taking decisions which are contrary to law, as any resulting losses to the Council may be the subject of sanction under the Ethical Standards in Public Life Etc. ( Scotland) Act 2000. It is also anticipated that the particular individuals responsible for consenting the project will be named in an ongoing complaint to the European Commission.
(5) Given the statutory duty which now applies to the Council (by virtue of s.1(5) of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003) to discharge its duties (including in relation to planning) in a way which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development, we would be interested to have confirmation of how the Council feels that permitting a new sewage outfall (discharging raw sewage every 3 days or so into Recreational Waters) achieves that end.
(6) Whilst the Council might be tempted to respond that it is for the Council to deal with planning considerations and for SEPA to deal with environmental considerations, it is not sufficient for the buck to be passed to SEPA. Many representations and concerns have been expressed to SEPA about the proposed scheme, and answers are awaited. At the very least, it would be sensible and responsible of the Council to take the view that consideration of the application should be deferred until SEPA have issued a licence under the
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 29
Controlled Activities Regulations.
(7) On a procedural point, we understand that some of the notifications have been neighbour notifications under article 9 of the GDPO, while others have been agricultural notices under Article 8. We had been assuming that Mr Wilson's interest would have been consistently dealt with, rather than Article 8 notifications under items (a) and (b) above, and an Article 9 notification under item (c) above. Perhaps the Developer could be asked to explain.
In terms of addressing the above concerns, please confirm in the first instance that you intend contacting the Developer to require it to re-submit its request for a screening opinion, and that (in view of the local controversy) you will invite interested parties to comment on that re-submitted request before reaching any decision upon it.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
BARRY LOVE for Semple Fraser LLP
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 December 2006 09:56 To: Kerr, Richard Subject: RE: Robert Wilson - Baraskomel Farm - Planning Representations....[#13245.1]
I refer to our recent email exchange, and have some new and relevant information. I have since received from SEPA details of the Notice which they issued to Scottish Water upon receipt of SW?s application for a licence under the Controlled Activities Regulations. I attach a copy.
That Notice requires SW to advertise the fact that they have applied for a licence, and it does so because it is SEPA?s opinion that the discharge applied for may have significant adverse impact upon the environment.
That in itself ought to be a sufficient pointer to the Council that the existing screening opinion should be set aside in favour of the process being re-done, not least in order that SEPA can be consulted afresh. As I recall, SEPA were originally quite relaxed about the request for a screening opinion, whereas now they are indicating that the environmental impact could be significant. Please confirm that you will pass this to your legal colleagues, in order that they might have all relevant information in front of them when considering matters.
I should perhaps add that I am slightly concerned at what I perceive the Council?s general attitude to be in relation to Schedule 2 applications. I may be misinterpreting what I have been told, but the impression I have formed is that the Council considers itself bound to consider ?planning? aspects, whereas it is for SEPA to consider ?environmental? aspects. I worry that this may mean that, on occasion, the Council will in relation to Schedule 2 projects take the view that EIA is not required, and grant planning consent conditional upon the applicant securing whatever consents they need from SEPA.
This seems to me like passing the buck, since it is of course for the Council to look at these matters itself. In order that I can have fuller information, I would be interested to receive from you (or your ?FOI? colleague) details of how many planning applications there have been to the Council in the last 5 years where the project in question was a Schedule 2 project and, of those, which have been screened so as to conclude that EIA is not required, and which
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 30
have been screened so as to conclude that EIA is required. Could that information please be made available to me under the Environmental Information Regulations?
Many thanks.
I look forward to receiving your confirmation that the attached information has been passed to your legal colleagues, and I look forward also to receiving a full response to my previous email in due course.
Kind regards,
BARRY LOVE
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 January 2007 08:59 To: Kerr, Richard Subject: RE: Robert Wilson - Baraskomel Farm - Planning Representations....[#13245.1]
Thanks Richard. If the Council decides that your approach is correct (i.e. that it is legally satisfactory for you simply to ask Scottish Water whether the characteristics of the scheme have been revised significantly, and to leave it at that), could I ask that the decision to that effect be issued by your Legal Department, and for that decision to indicate that it has been taken following consideration of the legal issues raised in this and also in my earlier emails?
The reason is that I would be happier giving consideration to a judicial review (if matters came to that) of a formal legal decision, than simply an informal opinion expressed in an email. Moreover, it would better lend itself to a complaint to the EIA section within the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission.
I would remind you that the environmental regulators have already decided that the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (In fact, it is far from "inevitable" that CAR applications are advertised. It does not happen as a matter of course.)
The fact that SEPA have come to the opinion they have is therefore of great significance in the EIA context.
Moreover, as we have discussed previously, the applicant misunderstood the basis (and Schedule 2 category) under which it was applying for a screening opinion, and the Council have still not adequately explained how they overcame the presumption per Circular 15/1999 in favour of EIA in relation to flood relief works of >2km in length.
If the Council's approach is simply to ask SW whether things are the same as they were a year ago, that to my mind seems like a borderline dereliction of statutory duty, in effect allowing the applicant to dictate whether the EIA process can be triggered, and reducing the EIA process to a mockery of its intended role, whereby the Council, as EIA regulator, bodyswerve the issues and leave the applicant to sort them out with SEPA.
I would suggest to you that if you are minded to ask SW whether their proposals remain the same, then you would, at the very least, also require to check with the other consultees whether their responses remain the same too.
If you were to do that, then to all intents and purposes you would be re-running the screening process. And if you were re-running the screening process, then - you may agree - it would make more sense to require that the process be re-run properly with a fresh request for a screening opinion based on a fresh appraisal document.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 31
Regards, BARRY LOVE
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 March 2007 09:53 To: Kerr, Richard Subject: RE: Robert Wilson - Baraskomel Farm - Planning Representations....[#13245.1]
Your ref: 06/02383/DET
Thank you for your letter of 28th February. My further representations are as follows: Illegality (1) The Council have never adequately explained how they overcame the presumption (per Circular 15/1999) in favour of EIA in relation to flood relief works of >2km in length. The absence of an explanation will render the consent open to challenge on the grounds that it is an unjustifiable exercise of discretion. Irrationality (2) The environmental regulators have already taken the provisional view (as evidenced by their decision to advertise the CAR application) that the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. It is therefore perverse for the Council to ignore this, and to prefer instead the contrary view of the applicant. Procedural Impropriety (3) Both the Council and SWS have relied upon the division of responsibility allegedly encouraged by paragraph 57 of SPP1, that planning decisions must be taken on planning grounds alone. However SWS fail to quote the remainder of that paragraph, which states that:
Even where legal or administrative measures outwith the planning system may exist for controlling a particular activity, this can still be a consideration to which weight is given in reaching a planning decision. If a consideration is material in planning terms, it must be taken into account in reaching a decision. For example, the planning authority should have regard to the impact of a proposal on air or water quality although the regulation of emissions or discharges will fall to be dealt with other under other legislation.
You may also be familiar with a recent case brought by the European Commission against the UK in the European Court (case C-199/04, reported on 1st February 2007). Part of the Commission's case was that " the United Kingdom had not coordinated its planning and pollution-control rules adequately so as to ensure compliance with the obligations and objectives laid down by [the EIA] directive ". Although the case was dismissed on a technicality, it remains likely that the Commission will raise follow-up proceedings, since they clearly take the view that the excessive regulatory division in the UK between planning on the one hand and pollution control on the other is not a state of affairs that will ensure proper application of the EIA Directive.
The fact that SWS (being the party with the principal vested interest) are actively encouraging the Council to make a rigid demarcation between Planning, and Environmental Protection is an influence that the Council should resist, and the most appropriate means of encouraging the necessary coordination between Planning and Pollution Control (as required by the Commission), and to accord with the need to have regard (under SPP1) to the impact of a proposal on water quality, would quite simply to accept our suggestion that any consent should be delayed until a CAR licence has been issued or, at the very least, granted subject to a condition requiring the CAR licence to be exhibited prior to works commencing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will also be copying these various representations to the European Commission, who may make use of them as further evidence of non-compliance.
Yours sincerely, BARRY LOVE
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602383DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank Page 37 Page 38
This page is intentionally left blank Page 39
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr Rory Colville PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 11 th December 2006 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 4th April 2007
Reference Number: 06/02602/DET Applicants Name: Scottish Water Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Application Description: Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber (no. 8) and associated vent pipe Location: Land to the South West of Slaty Farlan, High Askomil, Campbeltown
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Installation of air valve chamber and vent pipe; • Re-profiling of site;
(ii) Other specified operations:
• Installation of below ground pipework.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal is one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. The objective of the overall scheme is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, in order to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown and uncontrolled overflow discharges into the harbour, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works. Within the scheme there are a number of elements that require express planning permission (mainly above ground works) as well as a significant elements which are ‘permitted development’ (below ground pipework and associated infrastructure, and sea outfalls).
This application relates to one element of the scheme, namely the installation of an air valve chamber, a vent pipe and ground re-profiling works on land between the rear of the foreshore and the existing treatment works.
One objection has been raised by a solicitor acting for a local landowner, who does not consider that SEPA are likely to act in the best interests of his client. He has advanced reasons as to why he believes the scheme in its entirety ought to be subject to planning control, by virtue of the need for Environmental Impact Assessment. His position is considered in the report, and his representation is reproduced in full in the Appendix to application 06/02383/DET (which appears elsewhere on the agenda), along with the response to this which has been issued by the Head of Legal Services.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning Author: Peter Bain – 01546 604082 19 th March 2007 Contact: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602602DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 40
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 06/02602/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 5 – Development in Sensitive Countryside – Seeks to resist development in the open countryside but would support small scale development on appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites and, in special cases development in the open countryside and medium or large scale development which has a locational need to be on or in the near vicinity of the proposed site may be supported where the development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984 and (1 st review and alteration) 1988
STRAT 3 – A presumption that development with a specific locational need shall be permitted in the countryside.
STRAT 4A – Sets out the criteria against which development in the Kintyre countryside will be assessed.
RUR 1 – Seeks to maintain and enhance landscape quality and in particular would seek to resist prominent or sporadic development within the Island Davaar and Beinn Ghuilean area of local landscape significance.
RUR 2 – Sets out the criteria against which development within an area of local landscape significance will assessed.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006
P/DCZ 5 - gives spatial expression to ‘sensitive countryside’ established by Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 5, thereby seeking to restrict development to small scale infill, rounding-off and redevelopment, and development with an over-riding operational/locational requirement. This disposition of ‘sensitive countryside’ has not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan process, and can therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which the Council will assess all planning applications. This policy has been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may not be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP CST 2 – Sets out requirements for development on the undeveloped coast (within the ‘sensitive countryside’ zone). This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP BAD 1 – In all development control zones developments classed as ‘bad neighbours’ will only be permitted if there are no adverse implications for residential amenity, appropriate measures are included to reduce impacts on amenity, and there are no transport amenity or technical standards objections. This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None in respect of the application site. It should also be noted that the current proposal relates to a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water in respect of improving the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Many of the elements, including underground pumping chambers, pipes and outfalls, do not require the benefit of express planning consent as they are exempted from control by the ‘permitted development’ rights applying to sewerage authorities.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602602DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 41
Scottish Water have consequently submitted applications for detailed planning permission at the various locations where express planning consent is required for a particular element of the scheme. For the purpose of clarity, the applications currently being considered are as follows:
06/02383/DET – Installation of storm tank and ancillary development - WWTW, Slaty Farlan.
06/02602/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 8 and associated vent pipe – Land to the South West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02611/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chambers 6 & 7 and associated vent pipes – Land to the East of Fort Argyll and to the West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02613/DET – Remedial works to sewer connection pipes 17-20 – Underground Pumping Station, Foreshore West of Springkell, Low Askomil.
06/02607/DET - Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 3 and associated vent pipe and remedial works to sewer connection pipes 1-16 – Low Askomil.
06/02612/DET – Associated vent pipe for air valve chamber 2 – Sea wall at junction of George St. and North Shore Street.
06/02347/DET – Installation of generator, bollard and ancillary works – Pumping Station, Kinloch Road.
It should further be noted that at the outset of this project, the scheme as a whole was the subject of a request by Scottish Water for a ‘Screening Opinion’ by the Council under the provisions of The Environmental Impact (Scotland) Regulations 1999. In the event a ‘Screening Opinion’ was issued in January 2006 confirming that the Council did not consider the scheme as a whole as one which would require to the be subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. This decision was of importance, for in the event that such an assessment had been required, the otherwise ‘permitted development’ elements of the scheme would then have been brought under planning control. In other words, the totality of the scheme would have needed to be the subject of a planning application.
(ii) Consultations
Area Environmental Health Manager (20.12.06) – No objections.
(iii) Publicity
One representation has been received in the form of e-mail correspondence from Mr Barry Love of Semple Fraser LLP, 130 St.Vincent Street, Glasgow, submitted on behalf of Mr Robert Wilson, Baraskomel Farm, Campbeltown. The points of representation are summarised as follows.
• Concern is raised with regard to the validity of the Council’s EIA Screening Opinion issued in January 2006 with regard to the overall scheme of works proposed by Scottish Water to augment the sewerage system within Campbeltown.
Comment: The submitted representation is both lengthy and complex. It does not lend itself to being summarised and it is therefore reproduced in full as Appendix A attached to planning application ref. 06/02383/DET which appears elsewhere on the agenda, along with the response from the Head Legal and Protective Services which is attached as Appendix B which is also attached to planning application ref. 06/02383/DET which appears elsewhere on the agenda. Mr Love’s principal concern appears to be the anticipated number of overflow discharges into Campbeltown Loch from the treatment works, which he believes SEPA are likely to be prepared to consent. He therefore feels that there would be advantage in the scheme as a whole being examined by the Council as part of the planning process. In his opinion the Council misdirected itself when issuing a negative Environmental Impact Assessment ‘Screening Opinion’ in January 2006, thereby only retaining control over certain above ground elements of the scheme, and critically, not the outfall pipe. He believes that an Environmental Statement ought to have been required at that time, and failing that, the matter ought now to be re-evaluated by virtue of the lapse of time since January 2006.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602602DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 42
The Council’s position is that the scheme as a whole did not require the benefit of an Environmental Statement and that the ‘Screening Opinion’ issued may be relied upon. It is not necessary to re-visit that decision by virtue of the passage of time, as the details of the scheme have not changed subsequently. (Scottish Water have latterly confirmed that the scheme does indeed remain the same as that considered by the Council in January 2006). Although it appears that Mr Love does not believe that SEPA will adequately safeguard his client’s interests when authorising discharges from the works, this is a matter of pollution control exercised by SEPA as regulator of the water environment, and not a land use planning matter. The Government’s NPPG 10 confirms that it is longstanding policy that planning controls should not duplicate other controls or be used to secure objectives achievable under other legislation. The CAR authorisation process which will need to be undertaken by SEPA is open to public comment, and Mr Love and his client will have the opportunity to address their concerns regarding discharges to the loch directly to SEPA as part of that consent process.
Planning Advice Note 51 (Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation) gives advice on how the spatial planning and the pollution control regimes should complement but not duplicate each other. It suggests that the planning system should address the general suitability of the location of the site in environmental terms and that consent ought not to be given if there is a likelihood that other environmental controls cannot be satisfied. It also indicates that SEPA should have regard as to whether the proposed development is likely to be capable of being consented under their licensing regime on the basis of what is known at the time of their response to a planning application consultation. Whether a license would or would not be issued would not be a material planning consideration, although whether a proposal would be ‘capable of being licensed’ would be.
“When a planning authority receives representations or objections on matters which are more properly dealt with under an environmental protection regime and which do not raise land use planning implications, it is unlikely that they will need to attach any weight to them” (PAN 51, Para. 52). It is also stated that in exercise of their own responsibilities, planning authorities can assume that environmental pollution bodies will exercise their responsibilities effectively. In the case of this scheme, SEPA are fully aware of Scottish Water’s intended response to Campbeltown’s sewerage problems. They have been consulted on this application and have not raised objections. The control over discharges from the scheme will be exercised by them and the Council has no reason to believe that they will not act other than in an appropriate manner in so doing.
• The current application should not be determined until such time as SEPA have issued a licence for the development in respect of the Controlled Activities Regulations.
Comment: As noted above, the planning system specifically seeks to avoid duplication and repetition of requirements associated with other legislation and other regulators. PAN 51 indicates that there will be advantage in respective applications being considered simultaneously, but there is not an express requirement for planning and licensing consents to be issued in any particular sequence.
• That there are procedural errors in the neighbour notification that the applicant has undertaken in respect of the current proposal in that Mr Wilson has been served notification under both Article 8 and Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.
Comment: It is noted that Mr Wilson has received neighbour and ownership notifications in respect of more than one planning application. Neighbour notification in respect of Article 9 has been served where Mr Wilson owns land adjoining application; ownership notification has been served where Mr Wilson has an ownership/lessee interest in a part of the application site. It is the consideration of the Planning Department that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Article 8 and 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602602DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 43
(iv) Assessment
The proposal is a detailed planning application for works which pertain to one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Within the larger scheme of works there are a number of elements that require express planning permission as well as a significant part of the scheme which is ‘permitted development’ by virtue of Class 43A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 relating to development relating to sewerage undertakings implemented by a ‘sewage authority’. The objective of the larger scheme of works is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, and to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown itself, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works.
The current application relates specifically to works to be undertaken on a site to the south west existing waste water treatment works (WWTW) at Slaty Farlan to the east of Campbeltown. The application site is located within the Island Davaar and Beinn Ghuilean area of local landscape significance and as such the proposal requires to be assessed against the provisions of STRAT 4A, RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the ‘Kintyre Local Plan’. In respect of the emerging ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ the site is located within an area designated as ‘Sensitive Countryside’ and the proposal requires to be considered against policies STRAT DC 5 of the Structure Plan and LP ENV 1, LP CST 2 and LP BAD 1 of the emergent Local Plan.
Environmental Impact:
The proposal relates to an area of 0.05ha between the rear of the foreshore and the site of the existing waste water treatment works at Slaty Farlan. The application site is open to Campbeltown Loch to the south but is otherwise visually contained within the landscape by the topography of its immediate landscape setting. The proposal principally provides for the installation of an air valve chamber that will primarily be below ground. However, the development will require an increase in existing ground levels by approximately 800mm to accommodate the development; and a 900mm (wide) x 900mm (long) x 300mm (high) vent cover will sit on top of the proposed ground level. The structures to be installed do not significantly protrude above ground levels, and will not be a prominent feature in the landscape particularly having regard to the presence nearby of the adjacent WWTW building to the north- east.
The Area Environmental Health Manager has not raised any objections to this proposal on amenity grounds.
Locational/Operational Requirment:
The provisions of STRAT 5 and LP CST 2 allow for development with a locational/operational need to be supported within the ‘sensitive countryside’. The location of the proposed development is restricted by a requirement for compatibility with existing sewerage infrastructure.
Economic Benefit:
Implementation the wider scheme of works will result in a reduction of the flood risk which affects large parts of Campbeltown and, through the management of storm flows, will remove a significant constraint in respect of allowing the provision of public sewerage connections to serve a substantial amount of new development within the settlement and surrounds.
Infrastructure and Servicing Implications:
Implementation of the proposal will result in an improvement to the existing sewerage system within Campbeltown.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602602DETREPORT0.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 Rory Colville PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 11 th December 2006 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 4th April 2007
Reference Number: 06/02611/DET Applicants Name: Scottish Water Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Application Description: Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber s (no. 6 & 7) and associated vent pipes Location: Land to the East of Fort Argyll and to the West of Slaty Farlan WWTW
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Installation of two air valve chambers and vent pipes; • Re-profiling of site;
(ii) Other specified operations:
• Installation of below ground pipework.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal is one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. The objective of the overall scheme is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, in order to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown and uncontrolled overflow discharges into the harbour, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works. Within the scheme there are a number of elements that require express planning permission (mainly above ground works) as well as a significant elements which are ‘permitted development’ (below ground pipework and associated infrastructure, and sea outfalls).
This application relates to one element of the scheme, namely the installation of two air valve chambers, two vent pipes and ground re-profiling works to the east of Fort Argyll.
One objection has been raised by a solicitor acting for a local landowner, who does not consider that SEPA are likely to act in the best interests of his client. He has advanced reasons as to why he believes the scheme in its entirety ought to be subject to planning control, by virtue of the need for Environmental Impact Assessment. His position is considered in the report, and his representation is reproduced in full in the Appendix to application 06/02383/DET (which appears elsewhere on the agenda), along with the response to this which has been issued by the Head of Legal Services.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning Author: Peter Bain – 01546 604082 19 th March 2007 Contact: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602611DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 48
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 06/02611 /DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 2 – Countryside Around Settlement - Seeks to resist development in the open countryside but would support small scale development on appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites and, in special cases development which has a locational need to be on or in the near vicinity of the proposed site may be supported where the development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
STRAT DC 5 – Development in Sensitive Countryside – Seeks to resist development in the open countryside but would support small scale development on appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites and, in special cases development in the open countryside and medium or large scale development which has a locational need to be on or in the near vicinity of the proposed site may be supported where the development proposed will integrate sympathetically with the landscape and settlement pattern.
‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984 and (1 st review and alteration) 1988
STRAT 3 – A presumption that development with a specific locational need shall be permitted in the countryside.
STRAT 4A – Sets out the criteria against which development in the Kintyre countryside will be assessed.
RUR 1 – Seeks to maintain and enhance landscape quality and in particular would seek to resist prominent or sporadic development within the Island Davaar and Beinn Ghuilean area of local landscape significance.
RUR 2 – Sets out the criteria against which development within an area of local landscape significance will assessed.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006
P/DCZ 2 - gives spatial expression to ‘countryside around settlement’ established by Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 2, thereby seeking to restrict development to small scale infill, rounding- off and redevelopment, and development with an over-riding operational/locational requirement. This disposition of ‘countryside around settlement’ has not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan process, and can therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
P/DCZ 5 - gives spatial expression to ‘sensitive countryside’ established by Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 5, thereby seeking to restrict development to small scale infill, rounding-off and redevelopment, and development with an over-riding operational/locational requirement. This disposition of ‘sensitive countryside’ has not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan process, and can therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which the Council will assess all planning applications. This policy has been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may not be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP CST 1 – Sets out requirements for development on the developed coast (within ‘settlement area’ and ‘countryside around settlement’ zones). This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP CST 2 – Sets out requirements for development on the undeveloped coast (within the ‘sensitive countryside’ zone). This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602611DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 49
local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP BAD 1 – In all development control zones developments classed as ‘bad neighbours’ will only be permitted if there are no adverse implications for residential amenity, appropriate measures are included to reduce impacts on amenity, and there are no transport amenity or technical standards objections. This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None in respect of the application site. It should also be noted that the current proposal relates to a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water in respect of improving the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Many of the elements, including underground pumping chambers, pipes and outfalls, do not require the benefit of express planning consent as they are exempted from control by the ‘permitted development’ rights applying to sewerage authorities. Scottish Water have consequently submitted applications for detailed planning permission at the various locations where express planning consent is required for a particular element of the scheme. For the purpose of clarity, the applications currently being considered are as follows:
06/02383/DET – Installation of storm tank and ancillary development - WWTW, Slaty Farlan.
06/02602/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 8 and associated vent pipe – Land to the South West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02611/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chambers 6 & 7 and associated vent pipes – Land to the East of Fort Argyll and to the West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02613/DET – Remedial works to sewer connection pipes 17-20 – Underground Pumping Station, Foreshore West of Springkell, Low Askomil.
06/02607/DET - Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 3 and associated vent pipe and remedial works to sewer connection pipes 1-16 – Low Askomil.
06/02612/DET – Associated vent pipe for air valve chamber 2 – Sea wall at junction of George St. and North Shore Street.
06/02347/DET – Installation of generator, bollard and ancillary works – Pumping Station, Kinloch Road.
It should further be noted that at the outset of this project, the scheme as a whole was the subject of a request by Scottish Water for a ‘Screening Opinion’ by the Council under the provisions of The Environmental Impact (Scotland) Regulations 1999. In the event a ‘Screening Opinion’ was issued in January 2006 confirming that the Council did not consider the scheme as a whole as one which would require to the be subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. This decision was of importance, for in the event that such an assessment had been required, the otherwise ‘permitted development’ elements of the scheme would then have been brought under planning control. In other words, the totality of the scheme would have needed to be the subject of a planning application.
(ii) Consultations
Area Environmental Health Manager (20.12.06) – No objections.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602611DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 50
(iii) Publicity
One representation has been received in the form of e-mail correspondence from Mr Barry Love of Semple Fraser LLP, 130 St.Vincent Street, Glasgow, submitted on behalf of Mr Robert Wilson, Baraskomel Farm, Campbeltown. The points of representation are summarised as follows.
• Concern is raised with regard to the validity of the Council’s EIA Screening Opinion issued in January 2006 with regard to the overall scheme of works proposed by Scottish Water to augment the sewerage system within Campbeltown.
Comment: The submitted representation is both lengthy and complex. It does not lend itself to being summarised and it is therefore reproduced in full as Appendix A attached to planning application ref. 06/02383/DET which appears elsewhere on the agenda, along with the response from the Head Legal and Protective Services which is attached as Appendix B which is also attached to planning application ref. 06/02383/DET which appears elsewhere on the agenda. Mr Love’s principal concern appears to be the anticipated number of overflow discharges into Campbeltown Loch from the treatment works, which he believes SEPA are likely to be prepared to consent. He therefore feels that there would be advantage in the scheme as a whole being examined by the Council as part of the planning process. In his opinion the Council misdirected itself when issuing a negative Environmental Impact Assessment ‘Screening Opinion’ in January 2006, thereby only retaining control over certain above ground elements of the scheme, and critically, not the outfall pipe. He believes that an Environmental Statement ought to have been required at that time, and failing that, the matter ought now to be re-evaluated by virtue of the lapse of time since January 2006.
The Council’s position is that the scheme as a whole did not require the benefit of an Environmental Statement and that the ‘Screening Opinion’ issued may be relied upon. It is not necessary to re-visit that decision by virtue of the passage of time, as the details of the scheme have not changed subsequently. (Scottish Water have latterly confirmed that the scheme does indeed remain the same as that considered by the Council in January 2006). Although it appears that Mr Love does not believe that SEPA will adequately safeguard his client’s interests when authorising discharges from the works, this is a matter of pollution control exercised by SEPA as regulator of the water environment, and not a land use planning matter. The Government’s NPPG 10 confirms that it is longstanding policy that planning controls should not duplicate other controls or be used to secure objectives achievable under other legislation. The CAR authorisation process which will need to be undertaken by SEPA is open to public comment, and Mr Love and his client will have the opportunity to address their concerns regarding discharges to the loch directly to SEPA as part of that consent process.
Planning Advice Note 51 (Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation) gives advice on how the spatial planning and the pollution control regimes should complement but not duplicate each other. It suggests that the planning system should address the general suitability of the location of the site in environmental terms and that consent ought not to be given if there is a likelihood that other environmental controls cannot be satisfied. It also indicates that SEPA should have regard as to whether the proposed development is likely to be capable of being consented under their licensing regime on the basis of what is known at the time of their response to a planning application consultation. Whether a license would or would not be issued would not be a material planning consideration, although whether a proposal would be ‘capable of being licensed’ would be.
“When a planning authority receives representations or objections on matters which are more properly dealt with under an environmental protection regime and which do not raise land use planning implications, it is unlikely that they will need to attach any weight to them” (PAN 51, Para. 52). It is also stated that in exercise of their own responsibilities, planning authorities can assume that environmental pollution bodies will exercise their responsibilities effectively. In the case of this scheme, SEPA are fully aware of Scottish Water’s intended response to Campbeltown’s sewerage problems. They have been consulted on this application and have not raised objections. The control over discharges from the scheme will be exercised by them and the Council has no reason to believe that they will not act other than in an appropriate manner in so doing.
• The current application should not be determined until such time as SEPA have issued a licence for the development in respect of the Controlled Activities Regulations. E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602611DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 51
Comment: As noted above, the planning system specifically seeks to avoid duplication and repetition of requirements associated with other legislation and other regulators. PAN 51 indicates that there will be advantage in respective applications being considered simultaneously, but there is not an express requirement for planning and licensing consents to be issued in any particular sequence.
• That there are procedural errors in the neighbour notification that the applicant has undertaken in respect of the current proposal in that Mr Wilson has been served notification under both Article 8 and Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.
Comment: It is noted that Mr Wilson has received neighbour and ownership notifications in respect of more than one planning application. Neighbour notification in respect of Article 9 has been served where Mr Wilson owns land adjoining application; ownership notification has been served where Mr Wilson has an ownership/lessee interest in a part of the application site. It is the consideration of the Planning Department that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Article 8 and 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.
(iv) Assessment
The proposal is a detailed planning application for works which pertain to one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Within the larger scheme of works there are a number of elements that require express planning permission, as well as a significant part of the scheme which is ‘permitted development’ by virtue of Class 43A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 relating to development relating to sewerage undertakings implemented by a ‘sewage authority’. The objective of the larger scheme of works is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, and to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown itself, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works.
The current application relates specifically to works to be undertaken on a site located to the rear of the foreshore, some 200m east of residential development at Fort Argyll and 300m west of the existing waste water treatment works (WWTW) at Slaty Farlan. The application site is located within the Island Davaar and Beinn Ghuilean area of local landscape significance and as such the current proposal requires to be assessed against the provisions of STRAT 4A, RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the ‘Kintyre Local Plan’. In respect of the emerging ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ the site straddles the boundary of areas designated as ‘Countryside Around Settlement’ and ‘Sensitive Countryside’. The proposal requires to be considered against policies STRAT DC 2 and STRAT DC 5 of the Structure Plan and LP ENV 1, LP CST 1, LP CST 2 and LP BAD 1 of the emergent Local Plan.
Environmental Impact:
The proposal relates to an area of 0.13ha to the south west of the existing WWTW at Slaty Farlan. The application site is open to Campbeltown Loch to the south but is otherwise visually contained within the landscape by the topography of its immediate landscape setting. The proposal principally provides for the installation of two air valve chambers that will primarily be below ground. However, the development will require an increase in existing ground levels by approximately 525mm and 850mm at chambers no. 6 and 7 respectively, in order to accommodate the development. A 900mm (wide) x 900mm (long) x 300mm (high) vent cover will sit on top of the proposed ground level above each air valve chamber. The structures to be installed do not significantly protrude above ground levels and will not be a prominent feature in the landscape.
The Area Environmental Health Manager has not raised any objections to this proposal on amenity grounds.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602611DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 52
Locational/Operational Requirment:
The provisions of STRAT DC 2, STRAT DC 5, LP CST 1 and LP CST 2 allow for development with a locational/operational need to be supported within the ‘sensitive countryside’ and ‘countryside around settlement’ zones. The location of the proposed development is restricted by a requirement for compatibility with existing sewerage infrastructure.
Economic Benefit:
Implementation the wider scheme of works will result in a reduction of the flood risk which affects large parts of Campbeltown and, through the management of storm flows, will remove a significant constraint in respect of allowing the provision of public sewerage connections to serve a substantial amount of new development within the settlement and surrounds.
Infrastructure and Servicing Implications:
Implementation of the proposal will result in an improvement to the existing sewerage system within Campbeltown.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602611DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 53 Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank Page 55
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr Rory Colville PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 3rd November 2006 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 4th April 2007
Reference Number: 06/02347/DET Applicants Name: Scottish Water Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Application Description: Installation of generator, bollard and ancillary works Location: Pumping Station, Kinloch Road, Campbeltown
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Installation of permanent standby generator; • Installation of 1m high bollards.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached.
(C) DET ERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal is one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. The objective of the overall scheme is to take storm flows away from the head of Campbeltown Loch, in order to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown and uncontrolled overflow discharges into the harbour, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works. Within the scheme there are a number of elements that require express planning permission (mainly above ground works) as well as a significant elements which are ‘permitted development’ (below ground pipework and associated infrastructure, and sea outfalls).
This application relates to one element of the scheme, namely the installation of a permanent standby generator at the existing pumping station at Kinloch Road. This generator would be used to power the pumping station in the event of mains electricity failure (as this could coincide with storm conditions when it would be essential to retain pumping capacity).
One representation has been received requesting that the position of the generator be amended in order that it can be sited behind the existing pumping station building. Scottish Water have considered this request and advise that the sloping ground profile would make it impracticable to site the generator in the suggested location.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 19 th March 2007
Author: Peter Bain – 01546 604082 Contact: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602347DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 56
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 05/02263/DET
2. Prior to the commencement of works on site full details of the colour finishes to be applied to the external elevations of the standby generator enclosure hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to assist in the integration of the development with its surrounds and, no such details having been submitted.
3. The noise level from the operation of the standby generator hereby approved shall not exceed 45 dB(A) when measured as a five-minute L eq one metre from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling.
Reason: In order to minimise the adverse effects of noise on the local community.
4. Prior to work starting on site, full details of any external lighting to be used within the site or along its access shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include full details of the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. For the purposes of this condition, any external lighting installations shall be designed to confirm with the criteria for Environmental Zone E3: Medium district brightness areas , as specified in the Guidelines for the Reduction of Light Pollution published by the Institute of Lighting Engineers.
Reason: In order to avoid the potential of light pollution infringing on surrounding land uses/properties.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602347DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 57
5. APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 06/02347/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 1 – Development within Settlements – Gives encouragement of up to ‘large scale’ development on appropriate sites within the ‘settlement area’ of Campbeltown.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006
P/DCZ 1 - gives spatial expression to ‘settlement area’ for Campbeltown established by Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC 1, thereby seeking to encourage up to ‘large scale’ development on appropriate sites within the ‘settlement area’ of Campbeltown. This disposition of the ‘settlement area’ for Campbeltown has not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan process, and can therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which the Council will assess all planning applications. This policy has been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may not be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP CST 1 – Sets out requirements for development on the developed coast (within ‘settlement area’ zones). This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
LP BAD 1 – In all development control zones developments classed as ‘bad neighbours’ will only be permitted if there are no adverse implications for residential amenity, appropriate measures are included to reduce impacts on amenity, and there are no transport amenity or technical standards objections. This policy has not been the subject of representation as part of the local plan process, and therefore may be afforded significant weight in the determination of the application.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
Detailed planning consent 97/01306/DET granted for the erection of waste water pumping station and screen house. Subsequent applications ref. 98/01504/DET and 00/00516/DET were then granted for amended proposals.
Planning consent (ref. 05/02263/DET) was granted in January of 2006 for the temporary siting of above ground sewer apparatus and fenced compounds in connection with increasing the original pumping capacity of the site.
It should also be noted that the current proposal relates to a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water in respect of improving the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Many of the elements, including underground pumping chambers, pipes and outfalls, do not require the benefit of express planning consent as they are exempted from control by the ‘permitted development’ rights applying to sewerage authorities. Scottish Water have consequently submitted applications for detailed planning permission at the various locations where express planning consent is required for a particular element of the scheme. For the purpose of clarity, the applications currently being considered are as follows:
06/02383/DET – Installation of storm tank and ancillary development - WWTW, Slaty Farlan.
06/02602/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 8 and associated vent pipe – Land to the South West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
06/02611/DET – Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chambers 6 & 7 and associated vent pipes – Land to the East of Fort Argyll and to the West of Slaty Farlan WWTW.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602347DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 58
06/02613/DET – Remedial works to sewer connection pipes 17-20 – Underground Pumping Station, Foreshore West of Springkell, Low Askomil.
06/02607/DET - Re-profiling of land and installation of air valve chamber 3 and associated vent pipe and remedial works to sewer connection pipes 1-16 – Low Askomil.
06/02612/DET – Associated vent pipe for air valve chamber 2 – Sea wall at junction of George St. and North Shore Street.
06/02347/DET – Installation of generator, bollard and ancillary works – Pumping Station, Kinloch Road.
It should further be noted that at the outset of this project, the scheme as a whole was the subject of a request by Scottish Water for a ‘Screening Opinion’ by the Council under the provisions of The Environmental Impact (Scotland) Regulations 1999. In the event a ‘Screening Opinion’ was issued in January 2006 confirming that the Council did not consider the scheme as a whole as one which would require to the be subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. This decision was of importance, for in the event that such an assessment had been required, the otherwise ‘permitted development’ elements of the scheme would then have been brought under planning control. In other words, the totality of the scheme would have needed to be the subject of a planning application.
(ii) Consultations
SSE Power Distribution (received 08.11.06) – No objections subject to note to the applicant.
Scottish Natural Heritage (16.11.06) – No objections.
Health & Safety Executive (22.11.06) – No comments.
Area Roads Manager (28.11.06) – No objections, subject to conditions in respect of access geometry and visibility.
Comments: It is noted that the current proposal does not include for the formation of a new access onto the public highway, but merely the stationing of a portable generator within the existing site. Access conditions are not therefore appropriate.
Area Environmental Health Manager (04.12.06) – No objections subject to conditions in respect of safeguarding against potential for noise and light nuisance.
(iii) Publicity
The proposal has been advertised in respect of neighbour notification and as potential bad neighbour development (Section 34) One representation has been received from Mr Ronald, Togneri, Ivy Bank, Kirk Street, Campbeltown (received 28.12.06) who has raised concerns that the siting of the standby generator as proposed is unnecessarily obtrusive and it is suggested that the generator be relocated to the south-east to sit beside the existing pump house building in order to minimise the visual impact of the development.
Comments: Scottish Water Solutions have advised that it would be impracticable to site the generator in the suggested location because of the sloping ground profile.
(iv) Assessment
The proposal is a detailed planning application for works which pertain to one element of a larger scheme of works to be undertaken by Scottish Water, as a second phase of improvements to the sewerage system within Campbeltown. Within the larger scheme of works there are a number of elements that require express planning permission as well as a significant part of the scheme which is ‘permitted development’ by virtue of Class 43A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 relating to development relating to sewerage undertakings implemented by a ‘sewage authority’. The objective of the larger scheme of works is to take storm flows away from the head of
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602347DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 59
Campbeltown Loch, and to alleviate flooding within Campbeltown itself, by capturing a significant proportion of the storm flows pumped forward from Kinloch Green for full treatment at the waste water treatment works.
The current application relates specifically to works to be undertaken on operational land associated with the existing pump house building on Kinloch Road, located within the ‘settlement area’ for Campbeltown. The proposal requires to be assessed against the provisions of STRAT DC 1 of the Structure Plan and LP ENV 1, LP CST 1 and LP BAD 1 of the emerging Local Plan.
Environmental Impact:
The proposal relates to a 60m 2 site located immediately to the north west of an existing single storey pump house building. It is proposed to install a permanent standby generator within the site to power Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) screens, a single duty pump and building services. The generator will be contained within a metal acoustic enclosure which will be a rectangular-shaped container measuring 7m (long) x 3m (wide) x 3m (high), colour to be agreed by planning condition, with louvered panels, access doors and an exhaust pipe located in the roof. The proposed generator housing will be viewed within the context of existing infrastructure associated with the Campbeltown sewage system. It is noted that, following the submission of a written representation, the applicant has been asked to give consideration to siting the generator in an alternative location alongside the existing pump house building in order to minimise the impact of development. This alternative location has been ruled out by the developer on the grounds of practicality. Other works proposed at the site including for the installation of a valve chamber, access covers, pumping main, draw pits etc. are ‘permitted development’ and do not require the benefit of express planning permission.
Whilst the Area Environmental Health Manager has noted that the application site is located some 60m from the nearest noise sensitive properties, given the infrequent use of the standby generator, it is advised that resultant noise levels from use will be within tolerable standards. Whilst no objections are raised on amenity grounds it is recommended that safeguarding conditions be attached to ensure that the modelled noise levels are not exceeded. It is also noted that the proposal does not include details of any external lighting and it is advised that this issue also be controlled by planning condition.
Locational/Operational Requirment:
The location of the proposed development is restricted by a requirement for compatibility with the existing sewerage infrastructure which is compatible with the requirements of STRAT DC 1 and LP CST 1.
Economic Benefit:
Implementation the wider scheme of works will result in a reduction of the flood risk which affects large parts of Campbeltown and, through the management of storm flows, will remove a significant constraint in respect of allowing the provision of public sewerage connections to serve a substantial amount of new development within the settlement and surrounds.
Infrastructure and Servicing Implications:
Implementation of the proposal will result in an improvement to the existing sewerage system within Campbeltown.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602347DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 60
This page is intentionally left blank Page 61 Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank Page 63
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr John McAlpine PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 13.03.06 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 04.04.07
Reference Number: 06/00526/MFF Applicants Name: Mr. Alan MacDonald Application Type: Marine Fish Farm Consultation Application Description: Scallop Farm Location: Mealdarroch Point, Loch Fyne
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Consent from the Crown Estate:
• Application for new Shellfish Farm Site Licence (for the purposes of a scallop farm occupying a total area of 380m x 154m including equipment and mooring area).
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Crown Estate Commissioners be advised that the Council objects to the proposal for the reasons specified overleaf.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Crown Estate has consulted the Council on a proposal to establish a new shellfish farm off the coast to the south of Tarbert. The surface features associated with this would be extensive, comprising 72 grey colour 40” floats in all in a uniform methodical matrix occupying an area of 220 metres x 110 metres. This would be set within a mooring area of 380 metres x 154 metres marked by 4 navigational lights.
This site is on a wild and isolated stretch of coastline which is unique to Loch Fyne and which is consequently sensitive to intrusion from any features which would have implications for the maintenance of this wilderness quality and which would adversely affect the landscape character of what is a scarce resource. The application has to be considered in the light of uncontested Policy LP AQUA 1 of the new local plan, and with cognisance of the ‘Loch Fyne Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture’ study, which was issued as a draft in 2006, and which is about to undergo formal consultation with stakeholders. It is considered that the presence of equipment on the scale proposed will adversely affect the natural qualities of this isolated coast, and that as a consequence it would have unacceptable impacts for landscape quality. It would be readily visible from the route of a newly established coastal footpath, from which it would have adverse visual consequences.
The Landscape/ Seascape Capacity study places particular value on this stretch of coast in a local context, and it will through the consultation process, seek to identify other sites in Loch Fyne with greater capacity to accommodate further fish farm developments to the satisfaction of the full range of affected stakeholders. It should be noted that the Clyde Fishermen’s’ Association have objected to the proposal on the grounds of conflict with scallop and prawn fishing interests.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 15.03.07
Author: Derek Hay tel. 01546 - 604083 Contact Point: Richard Kerr tel. 01546 - 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 64
REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 06/00526/MFF
1. The application site is located on a stretch of wild and isolated coastline between Tarbert and Skipness, which benefits from a panoramic scenic landscape and associated seascape where there is a virtual absence of development. This new facility would constitute a disturbing intrusion adversely affecting the visual amenity and landscape character of the immediate and wider area in which it would be located; which is an especially valued landscape resource given that this is the only significant stretch of wilderness coast within Loch Fyne. As a consequence, the proposal conflicts with, with policies with policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the adopted ‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984, and policies AQUA 1 (Shell Fish and Fin Fish Farming) of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006, which, as an uncontested policy, accordingly carries significant weight as a material consideration.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 65
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 06/00526/MFF
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Kintyre Local Plan’ (1984 and Modification1988)
Policy RUR 1: The Council will seek to maintain and where possible, enhance the landscape quality of regional Scenic Areas and Coasts and within these areas will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact.
Policy RUR 2: Proposals for development in or affecting regional Scenic Areas and Coasts will require 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' Finalised Draft 2005 (as Modified 2006)
Policy LP AQUA 1:
There is general support for shellfish and fin-fish farming subject to there being no significant adverse effect, directly, indirectly or cumulatively on: 1 n/a 2 Landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity; 3 n/a 4 …Areas of Panoramic Quality; 5 Statutorily protected nature conservation sites, habitats or species ( an extensive area of the land adjoining this sea, between Tarbert and Skipness is a Special Area of Conservation ); 6 Navigational issues; 7 Areas of Isolated Coast (coastal area of ‘very sensitive countryside’); 8 n/a 9 Recreational interests; 10 Areas of search for wild land; 11 n/a 12 Water quality.
In the case of marine fish farming, this support is further conditional on proposals being consistent with other policies of the Structure and Local Plan, and the Scottish Executive Strategic Framework Guidelines. In addition, a direct operational need to a specific location will need to be demonstrated where proposals are within the ‘sensitive countryside’ or ‘very sensitive countryside’ development control zones.
Policy P/DCZ 6: ….this in conjunction with the Proposal Map Folder defines the land neighbouring this site as ‘very sensitive countryside’ which designates it as an area of Area of Isolated Coast’ in terms of with policy LP AQUA 1.
Policy LP ENV 10: Development in, or adjacent to, an Area of Panoramic Quality will be resisted where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless it is demonstrated that:
(A) Any significant adverse effects on the quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social and economic benefits of National or regional importance; (B) Where acceptable, development must also conform to Appendix A of the Local Plan.
In all cases the highest standards, in terms of location, siting, landscaping, boundary treatment and materials, and detailing will be required within Areas of Panoramic Quality.
Whilst the foregoing policies LP AQUA 1 and P/DCZ are not the subject of representation or modification in terms of the local plan preparation process (which means they may be accorded significant weight in the consideration of this proposal) policy LP ENV 10 has received representation and accordingly has not been used in the assessment.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 66
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None
(ii) Consultations
Scottish Executive (Environment & Rural Affairs Department) (letter dated 19.04.06): comment they can foresee no adverse environmental impact, (note: it should be recognised that their comments do not as a matter of course refer to visual or landscape issues but other environmental issues) or disease risk implications arising from this application because of and provided the following factors are taken into account :
There are no active registered sites within 2000 metres of the proposed site, which falls within the category 3 area known as Loch Fyne. The position of the site falls within management area 19a and as such will have an impact on or be impacted upon by the sites within the Fyne management area and as such it would be recommended that management agreements be entered into with other operators sharing the same area.
The area currently has no classification for the harvesting of bivalve molluscs as issued by the Food Standards Agency Scotland. The applicant should be advised to contact the FRS Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen who can advise them on the procedure.
Finally they report upon the objection they have received from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) --- see below --- and they comment that they trust the CFA’s opinions will be given due weight when considering the application.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter dated 06.04.06): comment that
1. There is no reason to expect that this proposal would impact on this water body to its detriment provided the wastes receive adequate dispersion. The determining authority (the Crown Estates) should ascertain through liaison with SNH, whether there are any species or habitats of natural heritage importance present and that the proposal will not put them at risk (eg from disposition of pseudofaeces or from disturbance of moorings). If this can be assured then SEPA would have no objections.
2. SEPA does however also wish it to be known that they have insufficient environmental data for this area to make an assessment as to whether the development will be in conflict with Water Framework Directive or biodiversity issues.
3. If this shellfish farm is allowed it could impact on the subsequent quality required for any new proposed discharges of sewage effluent in the vicinity of the shellfish farm due to the fact that the highest water quality is required as the meats are used live.
Scottish Natural Heritage (letters dated 20.04.06 and 05.07.06): does not object but it states it “strongly recommends that the determination of this application is put on hold until the results of the Argyll and Bute Council/Scottish Natural Heritage study ‘Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture in Loch Fyne’ is made available.” Furthermore, the letter concludes the following statement “SNH recommend the site should be considered in a strategic context and we urge the Council to take cognisance of the findings of the Loch Fyne aquaculture capacity study when they are known.”
Comment: this study has now been published and whilst SNH have made no further written comment on this application, they have advised verbally that the Council should have regard to the recommendations arising out of that joint exercise.
Within the text of SNH’s response they further comment that “The coast south of Tarbert and north of Skipness is highly sensitive to aquaculture development due to its wildness qualities. This stretch of the coast is characterised by an intricate, rocky coastline with shallow bays backed by densely wooded slopes which drop down to the shoreline. It is inaccessible due to
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 67
the absence of vehicular tracks; although parts of it can be accessed by foot via a rough footpath. There is no settlement. There is, however, evidence of occasional abandoned historic dwellings which add a historical depth to its sense of place. The degree of seclusion is key to the landscape experience.”…”this stretch of the coast is considered to be particularly sensitive due to its wildness qualities which are considered to be higher in this location than in any other part of Loch Fyne. It is therefore an important and rare landscape resource in the context of Loch Fyne”.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (letter dated 20.04.06): no objections – but is recommended that the separation distance indicated on the accompanying plans between the scallop farm and Eileann a’ Chomhraig (to the south) is maintained as it has been used by nesting terns in the past and maintenance of a reasonable separation distance will reduce the risk of disturbance should they return in future years; this is good practise for the maintenance of biodiversity.
Royal Yachting Association (RYA) (letter dated 05.04.06): they state “they do not wish to object, but we do wish to preserve an adequate minimum area for vessels to anchor between the proposed shellfish site and the island of Eilean a’ Chombraig to the south which is not being afforded by this proposal. Before the application was submitted the RYA believed they had reached agreement with the applicant to that effect, but whilst he has adjusted his siting slightly he has not done so sufficiently for the purposes of a vessel to swing in to anchor.
Comment: this matter could be addressed in the details of the Crown Estate lease.
Clyde Fishermen’s Association (letter dated 06.04.06): they strongly oppose the proposal as the fish farm will seriously interfere with scallop fishing, and on the basis of past evidence, is likely to interfere with prawn fishing at the location. They state scallop vessels already work in the proposed area for lease. They also comment that operators of a previous fish farm were unable, given the steeply falling sea bed to keep their anchors at a depth above 50m. Regrettably below that depth the anchors interfered with bottom prawn trawling. In consequence the association objects on both these two points. Their closing comment is that the applicant should re-engage in discussions with the Association to hopefully establish a mutual solution at another location.
Comment: It needs to be acknowledged that if the Council is supportive of the applicant’s proposal it will obviously disadvantage another stakeholder (the fishermen, both scallop and prawn, represented by the CFA ) to which the Scottish Executive in their consultation response have asked the Council to have due regard
Skipness and Tarbert Community Council: no comments received
(iii) Publicity
The Crown Estate has advertised the proposal in the local press. A representation has also been received from:
John Smith, Glendarroch, of Pier Road, Tarbert (letter dated 28.03.06) who also states that he owns land a short distance south of the site at Rudha Loisgte, and has known the area for over 60 years. His concerns are:
(1) that the apparatus may cause existing wildlife (family of otters, seals, ducks and shags, gannets fishing and sawns all seen on a regular basis) to move and be endangered. He also mentions Eilean A Chomhraig as a tern breeding ground just recovering from mink decimation;
(2) that such natural havens as this (the coastline is an SSSI) have been unspoilt for hundreds of years and this proposal would change that;
(3) that to his knowledge the facility would be serviced from Cowal bringing no benefits to Tarbert.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 68
Comment: Nether SNH nor the RSPB have made adverse representation in relation to conservation of bird species. My assessment below does pay due regard to the benefits of the landscape and its quality of wilderness which needs to be safeguarded. The economic benefits of the proposal are a material consideration, but not one of sufficient magnitude to overcome the adverse visual/landscape consequence of the development in this case.
(iv) Statement from the applicant in response to objections
The applicant of Barrhead, Glasgow writes (letter received 30.05.06):
(1) “I can reassure SNH who primarily have an objection on visual impact of the site that it will have no visual impact and indeed will be very difficult to see from a seaward direction. As stated in the application I am currently operating a site farming queen Scallops at Black Harbour, Loch Fyne and I would be happy to take anyone to that site to show them the impact of the farm on the local landscape.”
Comment: The visual impact of the site from the sea is less than that from the route of the recently established coastal footpath, from which visual impact would be significant. Landscape impact is another consideration not addressed by the applicant.
(2) “In response to the RYA (Royal Yacht Association) who I was in discussion with, I can move the site the full 0.5 cable NNW as they require, and as I intended to do in the first instance, but so far I have only moved it partly in that direction to appease the fishermen (Mr. K. Macnab representing Tarbert fishermen) expressing that they would prefer if the site did not extend too far offshore.”
Comment: In the event that the development were to proceed, micro-siting and the resolution of conflicting interests of the various stakeholders could be addressed by the Crown Estates in the details of any lease.
(3) In response to the Clyde Fishermen’s Association he comments that “the CFA in August 2005 had no objections to my proposal. I understand from MR. K. Macnab representing Tarbert fishermen that there is no alternative site for the lease as the fishermen dredge the whole area for scallops. It appears they will object to any development within any area as standard. Whilst I note there is a concern arising from the fact that the previous operators of the site had a problem keeping their anchors at a depth of less than 50m, all of my anchors will remain within the leased area as my longlines will run in a north-south direction preventing east-west movement of the anchors. Scallop dredging is destructive of the sea-bed, which means it can not be fished regularly, whilst the site is being fished this year (2006) it will be another 2 to 3 years before there will be sufficient number of scallops to fish again, it taking 5 years for a scallop to reach a size for the fishery. If the seabed is able to produce 3 scallops per square metre to fish then the seabed area of my lease could produce 175,560 scallops, whereas my proposal for farming would produce 700,000 Queen Scallops every year with no damage to the seabed or environment.”
Comment : It is a matter of record that the CFA have objected and that the Scottish Executive has asked that due regard should be paid to their views.
(4) . “Mr. John Smith has 3 points.
In relation to (1) affect on wildlife…I fail to see how the ‘apparatus’ will cause existing wildlife to leave the area, believing the opposite will happen, the longlines acting as reefs submerged below the surface and hundreds of different species of marine creatures attaching or settling on the lines and lanterns which attract other species to prey on them. There is no noise from the farm, no lights required (other than for navigational purposes ), and no feeding or pest control chemicals are to be added to the sea. Additionally, the area will benefit from the monthly testing of the water quality and testing for toxic plankton blooms.
In relation to (2) the environment and visual impact within it, I would be more than happy for my Black Harbour site to be visited to consider the minimal impact there.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 69
In relation to (3) although the site is to be serviced from the Cowal side of the loch, all shellfish grown on the site will be sent to local processors in Tarbert, an interest for supply already having been expressed by Loch Fyne Sea Farms.”
(v) Assessment
The relevant statutory local plan policies against which this proposal should be assessed are Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 (area of local landscape significance). The first test is whether the proposal is prominent to the extent that it would bring about an adverse environmental impact, and if so, other tests need to be applied to establish whether the proposal could be supported because of a locational/operational need or some economic benefit.
Visual and landscape consequences must be assessed under the remit of environmental impact. As mentioned above, Scottish Natural Heritage and this Council have been engaged in the production of the “Landscape/Seascape Capacity For Aquaculture ; Loch Fyne” which was published in December 2006.
The assessment of this current application has been held in abeyance whilst the preparation of this study was concluded. In relation to the area of coast within which the application site lies i.e. Coastline south of Mealdarroch Point to Pier Point (towards Skipness), the report concludes in para. 11.3.2 that:
“any development in this area would effectively remove this type of landscape character (remote, isolated and even relatively wild stretch of coastline along Loch Fyne) and would therefore reduce the resource of relatively wild coastline around Loch Fyne and in Argyll as a whole. No potential to accommodate aquaculture development of any type, including scallop lines and shell fish lines, was therefore identified in this coastal character area, as development would reduce the diversity of the landscape resource within the immediate context of Loch Fyne. The existing leases in this area should be withdrawn if the opportunity arises.”
As a consequence this proposal cannot be supported in the context of the findings of this joint study. SNH have adopted the view that that the recommendations of the study should be particularly influential in the stance to be taken on this scheme.
My more detailed assessment in terms of the specifics of this particular proposal is as follows:
In relation to visual impact : There is now a new coastal footpath (N.B. not the more inland Kintyre Way) that leads south from Mealdarroch Point at a high level. This affords access to vantage points of the site, from a high level, which is set within a panorama of scenically attractive coastline presently undisturbed in terms of its remoteness and wildness character, apart from some 4 buoys (assumed to be anchor points for vessels) which do not adversely affect the character just described. The proposal would place into this seascape six sub surface longlines to which 12 surface floats on each would be attached (i.e. 72 grey colour 40” polyform floats in all in a uniform methodical matrix occupying an area of 220 metres x 110 metres. This would be set within a mooring area of 380 metres x 154 metres marked by 4 navigational lights. From this equipment (although not visible) the numerous lantern nets would be hung to 10 metres below the surface of the sea and the anchor warp would be 3 x depth. In the knowledge that the surface elements of this facility would be clearly visible from accessible areas of landscape described as “wildness” in the above mentioned report, I have to conclude that this proposal would be visually intrusive and a prominent feature in the seascape which should not be supported for the reasons outlined in the study.
In relation to landscape impact: Adverse landscape impacts can arise at times even where visual impact may be low, as was the case recently considered by this Committee for the extension of an existing fin fish site on this stretch of coast. (Members might like to note that, in the event, the Public Services and Licensing Committee resolved to support that application on a temporary three year basis until the point at which the license for the original site would expire. A further consent would be required for the whole site at that time at which consideration could be given to the removal of fish farm development from this stretch of coast). Unlike that site, to which views could not be readily obtained from the land, this proposal would be seriously visually damaging, and its impact within the wider landscape
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 70
would be significant in terms of eroding its sense remoteness and wildness. This is because the mere presence of man made features can have a significant impact on areas of wilderness quality, which in itself is scarce resource within Mid Argyll and Kintyre, and even Argyll as a whole, and which needs to be safeguarded.
Policy LP AQUA 1, as an uncontested policy of the emergent local plan, seeks to protect via: sub criteria (2), “landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity”, and sub criteria (7) “areas of isolated coast” and sub criteria (10) “areas of search for wild land”. For a proposal to be supported under this policy, it would require to be acceptable in terms of all of these considerations, and for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs it cannot.
In terms of the adopted local plan, the proposal needs to be considered in relation to policies RUR 1 and RUR 2. Whilst these policies are not designed to address the specifics of fish farm proposals they do highlight a need for an assessment of ‘environmental impact’ which would entail the consideration of both visual as well as landscape impacts. As a consequence, the visual and landscape concerns raised above are equally at odds with Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2. Whilst Policy RUR 2 does enable a balanced assessment to be taken, bringing into account any locational/operational need, and economic benefit, I do not consider that those benefits associated with the development are sufficient to offset the adverse consequences for this valued landscape resource. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account the circumstances of the site operator and his statement mentioned above.
The ‘ Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture: Loch Fyne’ study designates seascape areas into the following categories as far as marine fish farms are concerned: • Areas at capacity; • Areas with no leases and no potential for new development; • Areas with no leases but potential for future development; • Areas with existing leases which ought not to be renewed; • Areas with existing leases and scope for expansion; • Areas suitable for shellfish development only.
The study identifies a number of locations with potential in Loch Fyne on both the east and west coasts of the loch. When the results of the studies consultation exercise with the various loch stakeholders (fish farming companies, fishing interests, sailing interests and so on) are known, later this year, I would hope to be in better a position to steer the applicant to explore other options with better prospects of success. Having considered all the facts, and also whilst a search is going on for a consensus on more appropriate sites for future growth of marine fish farms, I remain of the opinion that this application should not to be supported.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0600526MFFREPORT0.DOC
Page 71 Page 72
This page is intentionally left blank Page 73
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. Bruce Robertson PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 18.12.06 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 04.04.07
Reference Number: 06/02603/DET Applicants Name: Mr and Mrs David Blair and Mr. Graham Blair Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Erection of two dwelling houses and garages and installation of septic tank Location: Land West of ‘Tigh Na Glaic’, Crinan
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of 2 detached 1½ storey dwelling houses, and 2 detached garages (incorporating stables in relation to one garage); • New single private access off classified road, to serve both dwelling houses (as well as the farm operation to which these properties are linked); • Installation of a separate septic tank for each dwelling draining to a combined soakaway.
(ii) Other Aspects :
• Connection to public water main.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the application be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of Mid Argyll Local Plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached.
(D) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This proposal is for the erection of two dwellings on an elevated area of land separating the main part of Crinan from the area around the canal basin. Although elevated, the proposed buildings would not be visible from surrounding parts of Crinan or from public roads. The buildings have also been sited carefully so as not to be disruptive to the existing settlement pattern in longer distance views towards Crinan. The site is subject to the effect of approved local plan Policy HO 11 which restricts development to sites identified in the plan. The plan is now significantly out of date and the identified development opportunities have been exhausted.
The 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006 includes the site in the extended settlement boundary for Crinan, thereby giving effect to Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 1 which supports the proposal. It also includes the site within a Potential Development Area (PDA 12/57). The whole of the PDA is in a single ownership and it is intended to occupy/develop the remainder of the land for agricultural purposes in connection with the established farm, and with the occupiers of the dwellings proposed managing that enterprise between them. Whilst it is intended to erect future farm buildings, no other dwellings are proposed within the PDA. There are no objections to the proposal from the public or from consultees. The development may be supported in the light of the provisions of the emergent plan which can be given significant weight in the absence of representations in respect of the policies relating to this site. It is therefore appropriate to grant permission having regard to the provisions of the new plan, as a ‘minor departure’ to policy HO11 of the 'Mid Argyll Local Plan'.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 74
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 16.03.2007
Author: Derek Hay tel. 01546 - 604083
Contact Point: Richard Kerr tel. 01546 - 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 75
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 06/02603/DET
2. Prior to development commencing, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 and TM377 type C construction, with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the existing carriageway edge to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The access shall have a visibility splay of 2.0 by 70.0 metres formed in both directions from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
3. The driveway, parking and turning areas (for 2 cars per dwelling) as shown on the approved drawing shall be provided prior to the occupation of either dwellinghouse.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
4. Prior to the site access being constructed, a proposed contour drawing together with 3 cross-sectional profiles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority which shows how the road is to be assimilated into the landscape with the minimum requirement for cut and fill. These details shall have regard to the need to ensure that the gradient does 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 unless otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and highway safety.
5. Prior to construction being commenced on the easternmost dwelling house, the full details of the proposed ground contours surrounding this dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This drawing shall specify the new ground levels with contours at 0.5 metre intervals and shall ensure that the rock features adjoining the northern elevation remain undisturbed. Changes in ground levels associated with the construction of the dwelling shall accord with these duly approved details.
Reason: In the interest of ensuring that the visual amenities of this part of the National Scenic Area are safeguarded.
6. The dwelling houses and garages/stable shall be constructed in accordance with the respective floor- levels specified on the approved plans.
Reason: To ensure that the proposal integrates successfully into the landscape to safeguard the amenity of the National Scenic Area.
7. Development shall not begin until details of the scheme of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i) existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained ii) location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iii) soft and hard landscaping works, including the location, type and size of each individual tree and/or shrub. iv) programme for completion and subsequent on-going maintenance.
All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, for whatever reason are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of the same size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 76
Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping to ensure that the development assimilates into the Conservation area.
8. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of the dwelling houses and garages/stable a sample and/or full details of the proposed roofing material and the exterior render shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: To ensure a standard of development appropriate to the amenity of thepart of the National Scenic Area.
9. 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 Parts 1 and Classes 1, 2, or 3, and in Part 2 and Classes 7 and 9 of the 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 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 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 otherwise capable of being carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992.
ADVICE NOTES:
1. Attention is drawn to the attached copy letter from Scottish Water, dated 19.12.07.
2. Attention is drawn to the attached copy letters from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency dated 03.01.07 and 16.01.07
3. This planning permission does not give the authority for any works affecting the public highway. A Road Opening Permit under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Area Roads Engineer (tel: 01546 604655).
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 77
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 06/02603/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Mid Argyll Local Plan’ 1985 (1st Alteration 1989 and 2nd Alteration 1993)
Policy HO 11: “The settlement of …Crinan … is considered to be sensitive, where large scale or unsympathetic infill developments could have a detrimental effect on the existing landscape and servicing.
The Council has accordingly restricted new housing development to areas identified on the inset map. It will not grant approval for a house on Greenfield sites outwith these areas (but within the inset maps) other than in exceptional circumstances. Applicants will be required to demonstrate an overriding locational or operational need that makes it essential for them to have a house outwith rather than within the areas identified.
Where such a need has been demonstrated, special attention will be given to ensure that the actual location of the house creates the minimum adverse environmental impact.
Regard will also be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 when assessing all proposals within sensitive settlements.”
Policy RUR 1: “The Council will seek to maintain and where possible to enhance the landscape quality of the (a) National Scenic Area … and within this area will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact.”
Policy RUR 2: “Proposals for development in the National Scenic Area …. will require 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 Structure Plan' 2002
Policy STRAT DC 1 supports development within settlement boundaries identified in the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' where there are no identified adverse environmental implications, such as excessively high development densities, settlement cramming or inappropriate rounding-off on the edge of settlements.
‘The Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan’ 2006
Policy LP HOU 1: (HOUSING)
(A) There is a general presumption in favour of housing development other than those categories , scales and locations of development listed in (B) below. (B) Nothing applies ….. which means reverting back to (A)…. (A) Housing development, for which there is a presumption in favour … as in this case i.e. single small scale residential development in the settlement … will be supported unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact.
Policy LP ENV 19: (DEVELOPMENT SETTING, LAYOUT, DESIGN)
(A) Development shall be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located . (B) Development layout shall …effectively integrate with the countryside setting of the development, taking into account any sensitivity of the area. (C) The design of the development shall be compatible with the surroundings. Particular attention shall be made to massing, form, and design details within sensitive locations such as National Scenic Areas, … and Conservation Areas (such as in this case ). Within such locations, the quality of design will require to be higher than in other less sensitive locations.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 78
Policy P/PDA 1: (THE PROPOSED POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS)
The land is zoned under this policy as a Potential Development Area referenced PDA 12/57, and within Appendix F of the Plan its purpose is for housing, with an expectation that it could expect a mixed density development, 25% of which should be “affordable” (if it were to be developed for 8 or more dwellings).
The above policies are not subject to adverse representation as part of the local plan consultation process and may therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
. B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None
(ii) Consultations
Scottish Natural Heritage (letter received 19.12.2006): no objections
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letters dated 03 and 16.01.2007): no objections to foul drainage from the proposed two septic tanks to the proposed peat percolation module soakaway, confirming that their separate authorisation has actually already been issued under their registration CAR/R/1015295 for the discharge to a land at this location under the provisions of the Water Environmental (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2005. In relation to surface water drainage is noted that this is to be discharged to a roadside burn via a partial soakaway which is acceptable.
Scottish Water (letter received 22.12.2006): no objections in relation to public water supply subject to note to the applicant.
Area Roads Manager (report dated 27.12.2006): no objections subject to conditions in relation to design of the junction and provision of visibility splays.
(iii) Publicity
Advertised in terms of: Section 34 and Article 9, period for representations expiring 05.01.2007; and Development which is a Departure to Policy HO 11 of the approved Mid Argyll Local Plan, period for representations expiring 16.03.2007.
The period for representation in respect of the first advertisement has passed and at the time of writing this report no representations have been received. The final date for representations expires on the 16.03.06. If any representations are received subsequent to this report they will be reported for consideration verbally at Committee. In the event that a material issue is raised at a late stage, it should be noted that this could affect the recommendation set out in this report.
(iv) Assessment
The Mid Argyll Local Plan recognises under Policy HO 11, that the settlement of Crinan is a sensitive location, with the most sensitive part of it being the area designated as the Crinan Canal Conservation Area. Unlike the other site which appears elsewhere on the agenda (ref 06/02659/DET) this site does not lie within the Conservation Area, although it does neighbour the hill deciduous woodland on the hill which forms the western boundary the Conservation Area.
This proposal is to build two detached dwelling houses each with a detached garage (one of which incorporates stables) The site lies in an elevate location within the context of Crinan, but in such a position that none of the proposed buildings will be visible from any public
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 79
road. The proposal is to provide residential accommodation for two of Mr. Blairs’ sons, who in conjunction with other employment, will between them take over the farming of Mr. Blair senior’s farming operation, given that he is of retrial age. The farming enterprise (90 acres in extent) currently comprises 19 head of cattle and 47 sheep.
It is indicated in the proposal, that to the south of the domestic curtilage of the proposed dwellings, the land is to be used to develop a cattle shed and a further open fronted stock shed in connection with the existing farm enterprise. These two buildings are not part of this application and will be the subject of an Agricultural Prior Notification application which the applicant’s intend to lodge in due course.
To preserve the characteristics of this sensitive settlement, the Mid Argyll Local Plan guides all development, apart from that which be justified under locational/operational need, to specific areas identified under Policy HO 11 and the 2 nd Alteration Inset Plan. Practically all of the allocated areas are now developed given the age of the Plan, and the two small portions remaining have development constraints associated with them. The site now falls within the extended settlement boundary for Crinan established by the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006, which releases additional land for development. It also lies within ‘Potential Development Area’ 12/57 which identifies the potential of the land for housing development. The development of the site can be accepted as a ‘minor departure’ to approved Local Plan Policy HO 11, given age of the policy, the lack of available housing land within Crinan to meet local demand, and the acceptability of the proposal in terms of other approved and emergent policies as detailed below.
The proposal is to site two 1½ storey dwelling houses of different design on the elevated land to the east of Crinan Cottages with access gained from a new private way off the public road leading down to the boatyard. The new private way will be the element of this development that will be seen locally from within Crinan. This is aligned to rise up to the higher level utilising the contours of a gentle gully to best effect. In siting the dwellings, care has been taken to ensure that they will not be visible from within the Crinan Canal Conservation Area. The protection of the deciduous woodland within the conservation area affords the Council the necessary control to ensure that the woodland, (which offers a total tree screen in respect of this proposal), is retained in the long term.
Development on the more elevated land between the main part of Crinan and the area around the canal basin has had to be considered carefully in relation to more long distant views. The two dwellings proposed will be seen in the context of the rest of Crinan from the more elevated forest road/footpath network that leaves Crinan Harbour and skirts the coast at high level to Carsaig. The view from this location is distant and the buildings will not dirupt the overall appearance of the settlement in any significant way. From this aspect the buildings of Crinan are seen generally well spaced apart amongst a mixture of deciduous woodland and open hill ground.
The more critical view of this development which has been assessed, is from across loch Crinan, from Duntruine Castle and its surrounds. From this viewpoint the buildings in Crinan surround the entrance to the canal generally at a low level close to the coast, above which hills rise covered in mature deciduous woodland. If these two new dwellings were yo be inappropriately sited, they would appear incongruous and disruptive in this longer distance view. As it is, the sites chosen mean that the western property will not be seen at all from this viewpoint. The eastern property has been sensibly orientated so that only its small northern elevation faces Duntruine, siting snugly between bold rock features. With the slope of the roof rising in the same manner as the hill, and the elevations in a recessive material, I am confident the appearance of this dwelling will not be significant in the landscape. Consideration was paid at the pre-application stage to siting this dwelling in a more forward and hence lower position towards the coast, but it was appreciated that this would bring the dwelling over and forward of the rocks, which would then position it in an incongruous and visually jarring position.
The application has been considered carefully in terms of its consequences for the important characteristics of Crinan, including the longer distance views towards the settlement, which make it a ‘sensitive settlement’ as designated by the Mid Argyll Local Plan. I am satisfied that these qualities will not be adversely affected by this development, and as such I am
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 80
recommending that it be supported as a ‘minor departure’ to Policy HO 11 in the approved Mid Argyll Local Plan.
The other pertinent policies of the statutory Local Plan are those that seek to ensure that the scenic qualities of this part of the Knapdale National Scenic Area are safeguarded; namely Policies RUR 1, RUR 2.
Policy RUR 2 specifies the criteria against which proposals within National Scenic Areas must be assessed: (a) environmental impact – as assessed above, none of the none of the proposed buildings will be prominent in the landscape and as such can be accepted in relation to this policy. (b) locational /operational need – justification has been presented which could possibly support the need for one of the dwelling houses; although in practice both brothers jointly run the farming enterprise and neither dwelling is seeking to be supported on the grounds of agricultural need. Given that the proposal is acceptable under environmental criteria, no operation need needs to be advanced in this case. (c) economic benefit – none, as (b) above (d) infrastructure and servicing implications – the site is to be accessed by a new private way which can be achieved in a satisfactory manner in environmental terms and subject to the Area Roads Manager’s requirements. Water is to be supplied from the public system, and the proposed foul drainage arrangement has been accepted by SEPA.
In conclusion I consider that the proposal can be accepted in relation to approved Local Plan policies, subject to it being a ‘minor departure’ to Policy HO 11.
The relevant policies of the emergent ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ in relation to this proposal remain uncontested and therefore are significant material considerations. Since these policies now place the proposal within the expanded settlement of Crinan, the proposal is acceptable under policy LP HOU 1, as there are no unacceptable environmental, servicing or access considerations.
Within the context of the settlement the proposal also benefits from its designation as a Potential Development Area (ref. PDA 12/57). Any assessment of a proposal within a PDA has to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the proper development of the entire PDA area. It will be recalled from the policy section of this report that the PDA’s purpose was for ‘mixed density housing’, achievable only if the owner/developer was to engineer appropriate access and other infrastructure for the area.
Whilst this proposal only seeks permission for two dwelling houses, it also comes with an indicative plan to show how the owner of the entire Potential Development Area (Captain Blair), and the applicants (his two sons), intend to develop the land. It is their intention to utilise the land solely for the two dwellings currently proposed, in association with use the rest of the area for agriculture, including the erection of additional buildings for livestock purposes. The plan submitted also shows that additional land to the south of the PDA (zoned as ‘Countryside Around Settlement’ in the emergent local plan) is also to be used in connection with the farm enterprise. Since the Council is not in a position to oblige an owner of land to develop a Potential Development Area in the manner envisaged by the plan, given the intention to use the surrounding land both within and beyond the PDA for agricultural purposes by the intended occupiers of these two dwellings, and having regard to the fact that all the land is in a single ownership and that no other interests will be prejudiced as a consequence, I am prepared to support this proposal in relation to this aspect of the emergent plan.
Policy LP ENV 19 in the new plan requires regard to setting, layout and design issues and links into the Council’s Sustainable Design Guide. I consider that this proposal accords with the safeguarding measures of this policy on the basis of the recommended conditions. It will be noticed that conditions are attached to ensure that ground modelling, use of appropriate materials and landscaping will help ‘fit’ the dwellings and other buildings into this location. The dwellinghouses are to be completed externally in dry render, with slate effect tiles, and upvc windows, which will be acceptable in this location provide the colour of the render is conditioned to be recessive.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 81
C. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR A MINOR DEPARTURE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In terms of the 'Mid Argyll Local Plan' 1985 (1st Alteration 1989 and 2nd Alteration 1993), the site is located within an area subject to the operation of Policy HO11 which seeks to restrict new development to locations indicated on the Inset Map. By virtue of the age of the plan opportunities for development in conformity with this policy have been exhausted. The 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006 represents the most recent expression of Council policy and delineates an extended settlement boundary for the settlement of Crinan thereby giving effect to 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' Policy STRAT DC 1 which supports development within settlements where there are no identified adverse environmental implications. The relevant provisions of the emergent local plan have not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan public consultation process and may therefore be accorded significant weight in preference to the provisions of the now outdated approved local plan.
D. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR A LOCAL HEARING
In view of the absence of representations it is not necessary to hold a PAN 41 hearing in this case.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602603DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank Page 83 Page 84
This page is intentionally left blank Page 85
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. Bruce Robertson PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 18.12.06 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 04.04.07
Reference Number: 06/02659/DET Applicants Name: Mr and Mrs Gordon Blair Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Erection of a dwelling house and garage and installation of septic tank Location: Land North East of Tigh Na Glaic, Crinan
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of a detached dwelling house, and detached garage; • Improvement of existing access to a classified road; • Installation of septic tank pumped to ‘puraflo’ modules and a partial soakaway before discharge to burn.
(ii) Other Aspects :
• Connection to public water main.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the application be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of Mid Argyll Local Plan, subject to the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached. In view of the absence of representations, a PAN 41 hearing is not required in this case.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This proposal is for the erection of a dwelling adjacent to an existing dwelling on land to the south of and above the Crinan Canal basin and its associated car park. The site lies within the Kanpdale Scenic Area and the Crinan Canal Conservation Area. Although the site is well removed from the canal, it stands on land which forms part of the landscape setting of the settlement. The site is subject to the effect of approved local plan policy HO 11 which restricts development to sites identified in the plan. The plan is now significantly out of date and the identified development opportunities have been exhausted. The 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006 includes the site in the extended settlement boundary for Crinan, thereby giving effect to Structure Plan policy STRAT DC 1 which supports the proposal.
The location, scale and design of the property is such that it would preserve and contribute to the character of the conservation area and would not undermine the qualities of the National Scenic Area.
There are no objections to the proposal from the public or from consultees. The development may be supported in the light of the provisions of the emergent plan which can be given significant weight in the absence of representations in respect of the policies relating to this site. It is therefore appropriate to grant permission having regard to the provisions of the new plan, as a ‘minor departure’ to policy HO11 of the 'Mid Argyll Local Plan'.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 86
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 16 th March 2007
Author: Derek Hay tel. 01546 604083
Contact Point : Richard Kerr tel. 01546 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 87
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 06/02659/DET
2. Prior to development being commenced on site, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 and TM377 type C construction, with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the existing carriageway edge to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in association with the Area Roads Manager or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The access shall have a visibility splay of 2.0 metres x 70.0 metres in the southerly direction and a visibility splay of 2.0 metres x 50.0 metres in the northerly direction, both formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
3. The gradient of the driveway 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 interest of road safety.
4. The driveway, parking and turning area (for 2 cars) as shown on the approved drawing shall be constructed and made available for use prior to the occupation of the dwelling house and shall be retained for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
5. The dwelling house shall be constructed so that the approved ground floor level is positioned at 99.0 in relation to the datum level 103.5 on the classified road as shown on the approved plan, or at such other level as may be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The floor level of the detached garage shall be no higher than that of the dwelling house.
Reason: To ensure that the proposal integrates successfully into the landscape to safeguard the amenity of the Conservation Area.
6. The detached garage shall be sited in accordance with the position shown on amended drawing number 4319-100, dated received 15.02.07.
Reason: To ensure that the garage is situated in close proximity to the dwelling in the interests of visual amenity.
7. Prior to the development commencing, the details of proposed groundworks, which shall ensure that the exposed parts of the front steps and any under-building in relation to the dwelling house and the detached garage is minimised, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These details shall show the proposed finished ground levels in 0.5 metre contours, which shall be graded in a manner which integrates the building into the surrounding landscape, particularly as viewed the Crinan Canal Basin, the associated car park and the public road. The dwelling and garage shall not be progressed beyond floor level until the land re-grading works in conformity with the duly approved details have been completed, or as otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposal integrates successfully into the landscape to safeguard the amenity of the Conservation Area.
8. Development shall not begin until details of the scheme of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i) existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained ii) location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iii) soft and hard landscaping works, including the location, type and size of each individual tree and/or shrub. iv) programme for completion and subsequent on-going maintenance.
continued…….
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 88
The details under (i) and (ii) shall ensure that (a) the tree/shrub planting forward of the dwelling within the eastern portion of the site is reinforced between the present planting and the location of the proposed garage, in order to assist in its assimilation into the landscape; and (b) the re-contoured land north of the steps is to be planted.
All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, for whatever reason are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of the same size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping to ensure that the development assimilates into the Conservation area.
9. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed window and door frames shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including cross-sectional profiles. The development shall be completed in accordance with these duly approved details.
Reason: To ensure a standard of development appropriate to the amenity of the Conservation Area in which the proposal will be built.
10. 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), no additional window or door openings shall be formed on either the front elevation of the dwelling facing the Crinan Canal Basin, or on the gable elevation facing the road, nor shall any alterations to the design or proportion of any doors and windows on either of these elevations be implemented, without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason : To protect the area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse, in the interest of visual amenity, from unsympathetic design details within this Conservation Area, being aspects of developments normally able to be carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992.
11. 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 Parts 1 and Classes 1, 2, and 3 and in Part 2 and Classes 7 and 9 of the 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 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 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 otherwise capable of being carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992.
continued…..
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 89
ADVICE NOTES:
1. Attention is drawn to the attached copy letter from Scottish Water, dated 09.01.07.
2. This planning permission does not authorise works affecting the public highway. Prior to any such works being undertaken, a Road Opening Permit under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Area Roads Engineer (tel: 01546 604655). Condition 2 above, requires that the improvements to the junction with the public highway include the formation of a junction incorporating a passing place. Whilst in terms of this permission, this must be constructed prior to any other work starting on site, the Area Roads Manager is agreeable to the final surfacing being delayed provided it is completed prior to the first occupation of the dwelling. The passing place once formed to the satisfaction of the Council, will become part of the public road and will be maintained by Argyll and Bute Council.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 90
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 06/02659/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
'Mid Argyll Local Plan' 1985 (1st Alteration 1989 and 2nd Alteration 1993)
Policy HO 11: “The settlement of Crinan is considered to be sensitive, where large scale or unsympathetic infill developments could have a detrimental effect on the existing landscape and servicing.
The Council has accordingly restricted new housing development to areas identified on the inset map. It will not grant approval for a house on Greenfield sites outwith these areas (but within the inset maps) other than in exceptional circumstances. Applicants will be required to demonstrate an overriding locational or operational need that makes it essential for them to have a house outwith rather than within the areas identified.
Where such a need has been demonstrated, special attention will be given to ensure that the actual location of the house creates the minimum adverse environmental impact.
Regard will also be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 when assessing all proposals within sensitive settlements.”
Policy RUR 1: “The Council will seek to maintain and where possible to enhance the landscape quality of the (a) National Scenic Area … and within this area will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact.”
Policy RUR 2: “Proposals for development in the National Scenic Area …. will require to be justified against the following criteria : (a) environmental impact; (b) locational/operational need; (c) economic benefit; (d) infrastructure and servicing implications.”
Policy RUR 4: this policy protects particular types of natural features, the closest to this application site being (e) the broadleaf woodland area over 5 hectares in extent as found adjoining the site to the east. “The Council will resist developments which would erode or have an adverse effect on this decidous natural woodland.”
Policy BE 5: “Within the Crinan Canal Conservation Area the Council’s prime objective will be : (a) to prevent any deterioration in the appearance or fabric of the designated area through unsympathetic development …. (b) to further improve the general environment of the proposed Conservation Area by promoting enhancement schemes.”
'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' 2002
Policy STRAT DC 1 supports development within settlement boundaries identified in the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' where there are no identified adverse environmental implications, such as excessively high development densities, settlement cramming or inappropriate rounding-off on the edge of settlements.
The ‘Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan’ 2006
Policy LP HOU 1: (Housing)
(A) There is a general presumption in favour of housing development other than those categories , scales and locations of development listed in (B) below; (B) None relevant; (A) Housing development, for which there is a presumption in favour … as in this case i.e. single small scale residential development in the settlement … will be supported unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 91
Policy LP ENV 14: (Conservation Area)
There is a general presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing Conservation Area. New development within these areas must be of the highest quality, and respect and enhance the qualities that give rise to the designation.The contribution which trees make towards the character or appearance of a Conservation Area will be taken into account when considering development proposals.
Policy LP ENV 19: (Development Setting Layout and Design)
(A) Development shall be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located. (B) Development layout shall …effectively integrate with the countryside setting of the development, taking into account any sensitivity of the area. (C) The design of the development shall be compatible with the surroundings. Particular attention shall be made to massing, form, and design details within sensitive locations such as National Scenic Areas, … and Conservation Areas (such as in this case ). Within such locations, the quality of design will require to be higher than in other less sensitive locations.
The above policies are not subject to adverse representation as part of the local plan consultation process and may therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application. .
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None
(ii) Consultations
Scottish Natural Heritage (letter received 11.01.2007): no objections
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (original letter received 18.01.2007) no objections, confirming that their separate authorisation has actually already been issued under their registration CAR/R/1013659 for the discharge to a spring via a partial soakaway from a treatment plant at this location under the provisions of the Water Environmental (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2005. Subsequent to the issue of that CAR authorisation from SEPA, the applicant has amended the drainage detail from a bio-disc to a septic tank, with the same subsequent treatment prior to the discharge to the burn which is also to SEPA’s satisfaction.
Scottish Water (letter received 11.01.2007): no objections subject to advisory note.
Area Roads Manager (report dated 29.01.07): no objections subject to conditions in relation to design of junction with single track public road, so that the junction with specified visibility incorporates passing place which will become part of the public road.
(iii) Publicity
Advertised in terms of: Article 9 (Vacant Land) period for representations expiring 19.01.2007 Development potentially affecting the character of a Conservation Area, period for representations expiring 26.01.2007 ; and Development which would constitute a Departure to the Mid Argyll Local Plan (policy HO11), period for representations expiring 30.03.2007.
The period for representation in respect of the first two advertisements has passed at the time of writing and at the time of writing no representations have been received. The final date for representations expires on the 30.03.06. If any representations are received subsequently they will be reported verbally at Committee. In the event that a material issue is raised at a late stage, it should be noted that this could affect the recommendation set out in this report.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 92
(iv) Assessment
The Mid Argyll Local Plan recognises under Policy HO 11, that the settlement of Crinan is a sensitive location, with the most sensitive part of it being the area designated as the Crinan Canal Conservation Area. This includes not only the canal and those buildings around the canal basin, but the higher surrounding land and associated deciduous woodland that provides the natural setting for the settlement.
This proposal seeks to develop one detached dwelling house on elevated land well to the south of but overlooking the canal basin and the associated car park. To preserve the characteristics of this sensitive settlement, the Mid Argyll Local Plan guides all development, apart from that which be justified under locational/operational need, to specific areas identified under Policy HO 11 and the 2nd Alteration Inset Plan. Practically all of the allocated areas are now developed given the age of the Plan, and the two small portions remaining have development constraints associated with them. The site now falls within the extended settlement boundary for Crinan established by the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006, which releases additional land for development. The development of the site can be accepted as a ‘minor departure’ to approved Local Plan Policy HO 11, given age of the policy, the lack of available housing land within Crinan to meet local demand, and the acceptability of the proposal in terms of other approved and emergent policies as detailed below.
The proposal will place a traditionally designed detached dwelling well back from and above the canal basin, a little to the side and forward of an existing dwelling known as ‘Tigh Na Glaic’. The proposed building is of appropriate proportions, is gabled with a single storey wing on its western gable, has vertically emphasised windows, chimneys and in addition to the two peaked roofed dormers on the elevation facing the basin, has an appropriately designed forward central wing. This design solution will provide a dwelling of some character which will contribute to the framing of the built characteristics of the canal basin, whilst retaining its landscape setting. The existing dwelling sits alongside the road which climbs up from the canal basin. It faces towards the basin, and its design with flat roofed dormers does little to contribute towards the overall setting of the settlement. Whilst this new building will be equally prominent in terms of views up from the basin and out of the Conservation Area, its more appropriate design will help to enhance the setting of more sensitive areas below. Given that the building will make a positive contribution to the settlement and character of the Conservation Area, the proposal confirms with Policy BE 11 of the Local Plan.
The other pertinent policies of the Mid Argyll Local Plan are those that seek to ensure that the scenic qualities of this part of the Knapdale National Scenic Area are safeguarded. These policies RUR 1, RUR 2, and RUR 4 do not prevent development, but are designed to ensure that only appropriate development is allowed which does not damage the important elements, characteristics and features of the scenic area. The natural deciduous woodland framing the canal basin and canal system is important and protected by virtue of policy RUR 4. This woodland adjoins the application site on the hill that rises immediately to the east. As the proposed dwelling neither sits within the woodland nor affects the contribution which the woodland makes to the setting of the Conservation Area and wider settlement, the proposal can be accepted against this policy.
In terms of Policies RUR 1 and 2 the proposal has to be assessed against the following criteria in addition to the environmental impact of the proposal considered above:
b) locational/operational need – none, but as the proposal is acceptable under environmental criteria, this justification is not necessary; c) economic benefit – none, as (b) above; d) infrastructure and servicing implications – the site is to be accessed utilising an existing access to be improved to standards required by the Area Roads Manager. The present access is a secondary means of access to the adjoining dwelling and proposed improvements to this access mean that the plot can be serviced from the back without adverse impact on the environment. Water is to be supplied from the public system, and the foul drainage arrangement has been accepted by SEPA.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 93
In conclusion I consider that the proposal can be accepted in relation to the statutory Local Plan, as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of Policy HO11.
The relevant policies of the emergent ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ in relation to this proposal are significant material considerations, as expression of the most recent Council policy which is uncontested following public consultation. Since these policies now place the plot within the expanded settlement of Crinan, the proposal is acceptable under policy LP HOU 1 and the associated Structure Plan Policy STRAT DC1 as there are no unacceptable environmental, servicing or access considerations. Equally for the reasons expressed above, the proposal can be accepted in terms of conservation policy LP ENV 14.
Policy LP ENV 19 of the emergent plan requires regard to setting, layout and design issues and links into the Council’s ‘Sustainable Design Guide’. As initially submitted, the proposal contained a detached garage set away from, and forward of, the proposed dwelling, on land toward the canal basin. It was assessed that this aspect of the development would have been unduly prominent, and following negotiation, the proposal has now been amended so that the garage is pulled back level with and at an angle to the dwelling in a more appropriate manner.
The dwelling house is to be white roughcast rendered with a natural slate roof. Whilst the proposed windows are to be UPVC, on the basis that they will only be seen from a distance and in the context of the details of other windows in the vicinity, I consider that this can be accepted, provided the frames are of an appropriate design which can be secured by way of condition.
C. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR A MINOR DEPARTURE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In terms of the 'Mid Argyll Local Plan' 1985 (1st Alteration 1989 and 2nd Alteration 1993), the site is located within an area subject to the operation of Policy HO11 which seeks to restrict new development to locations indicated on the Inset Map. By virtue of the age of the plan opportunities for development in conformity with this policy have been exhausted. The 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006 represents the most recent expression of Council policy and delineates an extended settlement boundary for the settlement of Crinan thereby giving effect to 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' Policy STRAT DC 1 which supports development within settlements where there are no identified adverse environmental implications. The relevant provisions of the emergent local plan have not been the subject of objection as part of the local plan public consultation process and may therefore be accorded significant weight in preference to the provisions of the now outdated approved local plan.
D. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR A LOCAL HEARING
In view of the absence of representations it is not necessary to hold a PAN 41 hearing in this case.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0602659DETREPOT0.DOC
Page 94
This page is intentionally left blank Page 95 Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank Page 97
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member Cllr. Bruce Robertson PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 15.02.2007 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 04.04.2007
Reference Number: 07/00322/DET Applicants Name: Ormsary Farmers Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Erection of 8 dwelling houses, installation of shared biological treatment plant, and formation of sports pitch Location: Land around football pitch, Achahoish
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of 8 detached dwelling houses and 1 wooden shed; • Construction of access; • Installation of shared biological treatment plant; • Formation of sports pitch
(ii) Other Aspects of Development :
• Connection to private water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be approved as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the ‘Mid Argyll Local Plan’ subject to:
1) the applicants entering into a Section 75 Agreement in respect of off-site ‘affordable’ housing provision, as set out in section E of this report;
2) the standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached.
In view of the absence of representations, a PAN 41 Hearing is not required in this instance.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This application is in respect of the erection of 8 dwellings in a proposed Potential Development Area which lies within the expanded settlement boundary for Achahoish, as identified in the emergent local plan. Given the dispersed nature of the settlement, the proposal cannot be regarded as infill/rounding off consistent with the existing built form, and it therefore represents a ‘minor departure’ to Policy HO10 of the adopted local plan. There have not been any representations from third parties in respect of the application, or the emergent plan in respect of Achahoish, and therefore the more recent expression of Council policy may be accorded material weight in preference to the outdated local plan.
Although the proposal constitutes ‘medium scale’ development, whereas only ‘small scale’ development is normally acceptable within the minor settlements, this proposal may be supported as an exception as it seeks specifically to address localised depopulation and to support local services. The scale of the development is such that it requires two dwellings to be designated as ’affordable homes’. The developer intends to provide these on an adjacent site which already has permission for semi-detached dwellings which are more suited to the requirements of Registered Social Landlords. Off-site provision of these affordable units is appropriate in this case, subject to an obligation to provide these units being secured by means of a Section 75 agreement. E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 98
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 19.03.07
Author: Derek Hay tel. 01546 - 604083 Contact Point: Richard Kerr tel. 01546 - 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 99
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 07/00322/DET
2. Prior to development commencing in respect of any of the seven dwellings to the south of the public road, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. TM197, with the first section of the estate road (shown shaded on drawing No 341 pl – 02), or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Area Roads Manager, to be constructed up to adoptable standard, incorporating an adoptable standard turning head. Full details of the construction, drainage and surfacing details, of the road/private ways serving the houses, along with a programme for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in association with the Area Roads Manager prior to any aspect of the development commencing. These duly authorised works, apart from the final wearing course, shall be completed prior to the commencement of any of the building operations relating to these seven dwellings. The first occupation of any of the dwellings shall require the final wearing course being provided up to the dwelling served unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
3. This access serving the seven dwellings from the public road shall have visibility splays of 2.0 metres by 70.0 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site, these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
4. Prior to work starting on site, in respect of the single dwelling north of the public road, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the existing carriageway edge or as otherwise agreed by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Area Roads Manager. This access shall have visibility splays of 2.0 metres by 70.0 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
5. The gradient of the driveway to serve the single dwelling house north of the public road shall not exceed 1 in 15 within 4.5 metres of the edge of the existing carriageway.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
6. The driveways, parking areas (for 2 cars) and turning areas serving each of the dwellings as shown on the approved plans shall be surfaced and made available for use prior to the first occupation of each respective dwelling-house.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
7. None of the dwelling houses shall be occupied until the approved biological treatment plant hereby approved has been installed an commissioned to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in association with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and a scheme for the maintenance in perpetuity of the this communal treatment plant has been completed and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. In addition, the surface water drainage from the site is discharged in accordance with a separate Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SuDS) to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of public health and amenity.
8. Prior to the development commencing, a full appraisal to demonstrate the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the private water supply to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council’s Head of Protective Services, this assessment shall be carried out by a qualified and competent person(s). Such appraisal shall include a risk assessment having regard to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Private
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 100
Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and shall on the basis of such risk assessment specify the means by which a wholesome and sufficient water supply shall be provided and thereafter maintained to the development. Such appraisal shall also demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of any other supply in the vicinity of the development, or any other person utilising the same source or supply, shall not be compromised by the proposed development. Furthermore, the development itself shall not be brought into use or occupied until the required supply has been installed in accordance with the agreed specification.
Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby water supplies.
9. Prior to the development of any of the dwelling houses to hereby approved, the proposed floor level of each dwelling-house, which shall be specified in relation to the level of a fixed datum point outside the limits of the site, shall be specified on a plan which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This same plan shall show at 0.5 metre intervals any alterations to the contours of the site that are proposed, and which shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any such works taking place. In the case of the single dwelling to be located to the north of the public road, these details shall ensure that the level of the site is so raised so that the floor-slab of the dwelling is level with that of the dwelling immediately adjacent to the north. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with these duly authorised details to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development satisfactorily integrates within the topography and landscape in the interest of visual amenity of the area.
10. Samples of the proposed roofing materials in respect of each dwelling-house, which shall either be natural slate, a good quality slate substitute, or round profile metal sheeting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing. Unless otherwise submitted and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the external elevations shall be finished in accordance with the approved details, with areas of render to be painted white, timber casement framework to be grey, and with untreated larch timber cladding laid horizontally and vertically in respect of each elevation in the manner shown on the approved drawings, unless any variation thereof is agreed in advance in writing by the Council as Planning Authority . The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved and duly authorised details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings.
11. Development shall not begin until details of the scheme of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i) location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates; ii) existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii) soft and hard landscaping works, including the location, type and size of each additional individual tree and/or shrub, specifically specifying the measures for all the areas beyond the curtilages of the dwelling-houses, and the details in respect of the ‘transplanting’ area which shall ensure that locally sourced native species such as sessile oak, downy birch, hawthorn and rowan are used; iv) the details of the football pitch; v) programme for completion and subsequent on-going maintenance, for all aspects.
All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, or for whatever reason are removed or damaged (this not only concerns the duly approved planting scheme, but also those trees specified for retention within the approved plans) shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of the same size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping, as well as creation and maintenance of required public amenity area (the football pitch).
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 101
12. In respect of all the dwelling houses the subject of this permission, 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, the exterior painting/staining of any of the timber cladding or the painting of any of the rendered elevations other than in white.
Reason : To protect the area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouses, in the interest of visual amenity, from the application of unsympathetic colours otherwise capable of being carried out without planning permission under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992.
13. Prior to the occupation of each dwelling, details of the proposed means of enclosure of the curtilage of the dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. 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 the erection of walls, fences or gates, other than those expressly authorised by virtue of written consent given by the Council as Planning Authority in accordance with the terms of this condition.
Reason: To protect the area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouses, in the interest of visual amenity, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments otherwise capable of being carried out without planning permission under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992.
Advice Notes:
1. Attention is drawn to the fact that the applicant/developer should obtain ‘Road Opening Permits’ under Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 from the Council by making contact with the Area Roads Engineer (Tel: 01546 064655), prior to the formation of either access point. Contact should also be made with the Area Roads Engineer in relation to the separate Construction Consent (under Section 21) and the required Road Bond (under Section 17) of the same Act, in relation to the estate road. The further details that need to be supplied to the Area Roads Manager, as required by condition 2 above, should incorporate: a) junction markings; b) specification for a turning head at the end of the adoptable standard road sufficient for the turning of a public service vehicle; c) refuse collection points to be provided at the end of each private road; d) the first 5 metres of each private road to be hard surfaced back from the limit of the adoptable standard road; e) junction details which ensure that no surface water is discharged to the public highway. f) advance junction warning signs should be provided to the satisfaction of the Area Roads Manager, in accordance with Diagram No. 506.1, which can be supplied on request.
2. Attention is drawn to the attached copy letter from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency dated 08.03.07.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 102
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 07/00322/DET
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
‘Mid Argyll Local Plan’ 1985 (1st Alteration 1989 and 2 nd Alteration 1993).
Policy HO 10: Within the settlement of … Achahoish … the Council will encourage the development of infill, rounding off and redevelopment related to the existing built form. Regard will be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 72. Proposal which do not relate to the existing built form will be carefully assessed for servicing and environmental implications and those considered to have an adverse impact will normally be resisted.
Policy RUR 1: “The Council will seek to maintain and where possible to enhance the landscape quality of the National Scenic Area and within this area will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact.”
Policy RUR 2: “Proposals for development in the National Scenic Area will require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) environmental impact; (b) locational/operational need; (c) economic benefit; (d) infrastructure and servicing implications.”
Policy RUR 4: this policy protects particular types of natural features, the closest to this application site being the broadleaf woodland area over 5 hectares in extent adjoining the site to the east. “The Council will resist developments which would erode or have an adverse effect on this decidous natural woodland.”
'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' 2002
Policy STRAT DC 1 supports development within settlement boundaries identified in the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' where there are no identified adverse environmental implications, such as excessively high development densities, settlement cramming or inappropriate rounding-off on the edge of settlements. In particular it states:
Encouragement shall be given, subject to capacity assessments, to development within a minor settlement to small scale development which is compatible with an essentially rural settlement location on an appropriate infill, rounding-off, and redevelopment; and in exceptional cases medium or large scale development may be supported.
The ‘Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan’ 2006
Policy LP HOU 1: (Housing)
There is a general presumption in favour of housing development, unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact, other than those categories, scales and locations of development listed in (B) below;
(A) There is a general presumption against housing development when it involves ‘medium scale’ housing development (defined as between 6-30 dwelling units) in the minor settlements, (Achahoish being one of them ).
(B) Housing development, for which there is a general presumption against (as in this case, so far as it is for 8 dwellings in a minor settlement ) will not be supported unless an exceptional case is successfully demonstrated in accordance with those exceptions listed for each development control zone in the justification for this policy.
The exceptions which would allow medium scale development i.e. 6-30 dwellings in Achahoish are defined in the policy justification (page 67) where there is -
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 103
“a deliberate attempt to counter population decline in the area, to help deliver affordable housing, or else meet a particular local housing need. Such proposals should not overwhelm the townscape character, or the capacity, of the settlement and be consistent with all other policies of the Structure and Local Plan.”
Policy LP HOU 2: (Provision of Housing to meet local needs including affordable housing provision)
This policy requires that on sites of 8 or more dwellings an element of affordable housing provision should be secured along with measures to guarantee long-term affordability. Planning conditions and Section 75 agreements should be used as a delivery mechanism, and to accord with PAN 74 a contribution of 25% affordable housing provision will generally be sought.
Policy LP ENV 19: (Development Setting Layout and Design)
(A) Development shall be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located;
(B) Development layout and density shall …effectively integrate with the urban, suburban or countryside setting of the development. Layouts shall be adapted , as appropriate , to take into account the location or sensitivity of the area. Developments with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities including over-development and over-shadowing of the sites shall be resisted;
(C) The design of the development shall be compatible with the surroundings. Particular attention shall be made to massing, form, and design details within sensitive locations …. such as the National Scenic Area ( as in this case ). Within such locations, the quality of design will require to be higher than in other less sensitive locations.
Policy P/PDA 1: (THE PROPOSED POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS)
The land is zoned under this policy as a Potential Development Area referenced PDA 12/54, and within Appendix F of the Plan its purpose is for housing, with an expectation that it could expect a mixed density development (25% of which should be ‘affordable’ in the case of 8 dwellings).
The above policies are not subject to adverse representation as part of the local plan consultation process and may therefore be accorded material weight in the determination of the application.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
06/01899/DET – application for 8 similar dwelling houses in this same location was withdrawn because inadvertently it did not incorporate the required foul drainage arrangement, as now included in this application.
(ii) Consultations
Scottish Natural Heritage (letter dated 15.03.07): no objections subject to a condition that “locally sourced native species such as sessile oak, downy birch, hawthorn, and rowan are used in the ‘transplanting’ area and that planting occurs immediately subsequent to completion of building work.”
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter dated 08.03.07): With regard to the foul drainage system and the proposed biological treatment plant – no objections. With regard to the surface water drainage – this should be dealt with by a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS).
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter dated 26.02.07) : no objections.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 104
Area Roads Manager (report dated 19.03.07): no objections, subject to a number of conditions, specifically requiring the first part of the housing development access road being constructed to adoptable standard and with a visibility splay to the existing public road of 70 metres, which is achievable. He also comments in relation to one of the house plots (the single plot on the northern side of the burn that it could be at risk from flooding uless existing ground levels were to be raised. Comment - this matter has been discussed with the applicant who is prepared for the site levels of this plot, presently low in relation to the burn, to be raised to a level comparable to that of the existing dwellings adjacent to the plot. A condition is attached to safeguard this matter.
Area Environmental Health Manager (report dated 09.03.07): no objections subject to condition relating to specification of quality and quantity of private water supply.
(iii) Publicity
The proposal has been advertised under Section 34 and Article 9 and the period for representations expired on the 16.03.2007. The proposal was also advertised as a departure to Policy HO 10 and to policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan 1985(1st Alteration and 2nd Alteration). The period for representations in relation to that advertisement expires on the 30.03.2007.
No letters of representation have been received to date. If any representation are received subsequent to this date and Committee they will be reported verbally. In the event that a material issue is raised at a late stage, it should be noted that this could affect the recommendation set out in this report.
(iv) Assessment
The site is located within the loosely laid out settlement of Achahoish within the Knapdale National Scenic Area. The development comprises seven detached dwelling houses to be sited in a crescent off a proposed cul-de-sac to the south of the public road to Ellary, and a further single dwelling house to be sited north of the public road. To service this development a new communal biological treatment plant is proposed, the details of which have been accepted by SEPA. The plant is to be constructed on the northern side of the public road utilising an undeveloped parcel of spare land at the side of the road between the last house, the burn and the church. The site is to be supplied from the established Ormsary Estate private water supply associated with the Ormsary hydro scheme. The main part of the site is currently an open grassed area used informally for sports purposes. This is to be formalised by the provision of an 18 metre by 40 metre grass sports pitch within the development.
The eight dwelling houses consist of three different house styles, all appearing to be single storey, although all with rooms within the roof-space lit by roof-lights. The design of the buildings are traditional in proportion although contemporary in detailing and fenestration (being linear between 16 and 19 metres in length, with narrow gables of 5.5 to 6 metres, steep roof pitches, and ridge heights of 5.5 to 5.8 metres high). They also have a chimney or flue on the ridge. The buildings are designed by Dualchas Building Design of the Isle of Skye, in the same style as a form of dwelling acknowledged as being of appropriate design to the Argyll situation, in the Council’s recently published Sustainable Design Guide.
The layout and position of the dwelling houses is now acceptable, alterations having taken place through negotiation since the previous withdrawn submission. The three dwelling houses adjoining the public road are now predominantly white render and they are orientated at various angles to the public road assisting in their contribution to the loose unplanned rural built form of Achahoish. The other five dwelling houses are sited towards the back of the site, south of the public road, near to a backcloth of rising land with mature deciduous woodland. This is to be retained and will contributes to the setting of the development as a whole. These dwellings (apart from one rendered dwelling included for variety), will be all faced in untreated larch boarding which will weather to take on a grey appearance over time, and the design and appearance of these buildings is appropriate given their relationship with the wooded area behind. The dwellings will be grouped around a formally laid out football pitch, which represents an upgrade of the informal use of the land to date. The dwellings are appropriately positioned, with good spacing to reflect the low density character of the
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 105
settlement and with and no adverse privacy implications between any of the proposed dwellings and the existing semi-detached dwelling houses on the northern side of the road.
Whilst the development is thoughtfully laid out and designed, it will represent a significant development in the context of the minor settlement of Achahoish, which cannot be regarded as ‘rounding-off’ consistent with the existing built form of the settlement. As such the proposal must be regarded as a ‘minor departure’ to the provisions of the approved ‘Mid Argyll Local Plan’ in respect of Policy HO 10. The proposal would, however, be in accordance with the provisions of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006 which can be accorded material weight in the light of the lack of adverse representations and the outdated nature of the adopted plan. (The relevant provisions of the emergent plan are discussed below).
In view of the location of the site within a National Scenic Area, the proposal must be considered in the light of adopted plan policies RUR 1 and RUR 2. In relation to RUR 1 the development is neither ‘prominent’ nor ‘sporadic’ in the context of the existing built form of the settlement. Policy RUR 2 requires assessment under the following criteria:
(a) Environmental impact: there are no adverse consequences associated with the single dwelling house on the northern side of the public road, as it constitutes appropriate ‘infill /rounding-off’ between the present housing and the burn/church. In relation to the seven dwelling on the southern side of the road, whilst the proposal does bring in relative terms a significant growth to the settlement in a new location, the land is visually framed by the rising wooded ground which surrounds it in an arc, which is appropriate for the growth of the settlement given that the form proposed retains the character of loosely laid out development. Accordingly, I do not consider that this development is prominent or damaging visually.
(b) Locational/operational need: no specific need has been put forward by the applicant, but it is intended to provide an element of ‘affordable’ housing as part of this development.
(c) Economic benefit: nothing direct, although additional dwellings will benefit the sustainability of local services, and the primary school in particular.
(d) Infrastructure / servicing implications; no constraints.
The emergent ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ as it relates to Achahoish, carries significant material weight as the relevant policies within it have been uncontested as part of the local plan public consultation process. The new plan includes the application site within the settlement boundary for the village and also includes it within PDA 12/54 (mixed density housing with a 25% affordability component). The development of a Potential Development Area needs to be considered in a comprehensive manner, and as this proposal addresses all the land contained by the PDA it is compliant in this respect. (It should be noted that there are no housing allocations in Achahoish, hence no other land that should be accorded greater priority for development).
The primary policy that needs to be considered in relation to the new Local Plan is LP HOU 1. Under normal circumstances this policy, linked to the designation of Achahoish as a minor settlement, would restrict development to ‘small scale’ i.e. not exceeding 5 dwellings. However in this case, specific identification of the land as a PDA and the willingness on the part of the applicant to include an ‘affordability’ element to help counter population decline, would allow an exception to be made. The low density form of the development is such that the proposal can be absorbed successfully into the village and without overwhelming the capacity of the landscape or the character of the settlement.
Acceptance of the proposal in the context of the PDA requires 25% of the development to be ‘affordable’ housing ; this means at least 2 of the 8 dwellings need to be sold to or built by a Registered Social Landlord, or provided by some other acceptable means of delivering ‘affordable’ housing. The applicants are particularly keen to provide this to help reverse a localised population decline trend. With this in mind, planning permission has recently been granted (under delegated powers) for three pairs of semi-detached dwellings elsewhere in the settlement in a ‘rounding-off’ location that did not represent a departure to the adopted local plan (07/00323/DET). The applicants wish to secure the required 2 ‘affordable’ houses
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 106
within this semi-detached group recently permitted, but as yet not constructed. They are particularly keen to deliver affordability in this way, as it is likely that they will in fact offer all six properties to a Registered Social Landlord. Subject to there being a guarantee that affordability obligations can be met off-site as part of a development already permitted on land in the applicant’s control, I am agreeable to this course of action, subject to this permission being the subject of Section 75 Agreement to ensure that this is indeed the case.
C. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR A MINOR DEPARTURE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In terms of the 'Mid Argyll Local Plan' 1985 (1st Alteration 1989 and 2nd Alteration 1993), the site is located within an area subject to the operation of Policy HO10 which seeks to encourage the development of infill, rounding off and redevelopment related to the existing built form; and also Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 which have particular regard to environmental impact and the servicing implications. As this proposal does not relate to the existing built form of Achahoish, the development constitutes a ‘minor departure’ to the approved development plan. The 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006 represents the most recent expression of Council policy and delineates an extended settlement boundary for the settlement of Achahoish, thereby giving effect to 'Argyll and Bute Structure Plan' Policy STRAT DC 1, which supports development within settlements where there are no identified adverse environmental implications. The application site also lies within PDA 12/54 (mixed density housing with a 25% affordability component) to which there have been no adverse representations. The provisions of the emergent local plan may therefore be accorded significant weight in preference to the provisions of the now outdated approved local plan.
D. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED FOR A LOCAL HEARING
In view of the absence of representations it is not necessary to hold a PAN 41 hearing in this case.
E. TERMS OF SECTION 75 AGREEMENT
Development on the scale proposed, triggers a requirement through emergent local plan policy HOU 2 for a 25% element of affordable housing provision. In the case of this proposal the developers have requested that this obligation be met off-site, by a minimum of two units on land within their control within an adjoining approved, but as yet unimplemented development, being made available to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) for the purposes of affordability. It is therefore necessary for this permission to be made subject to a legal agreement which requires two of the six units permitted under planning permission 07/00323/DET being made available by the applicant for development by, or on behalf of, an RSL; or, in the event that it is not possible to secure RSL interest in that site within 2 years, by such other alternative long-term affordability delivery mechanism as identified in Planning Advice Note 74 ‘Affordable Housing’. The two off- site affordable units are to be provided prior to the occupation of the seventh and eighth dwelling permitted by this consent.
F. REASON FOR REFUSAL IN THE EVENT THAT THE SECTION 75 AGREEMENT IS NOT CONCLUDED
In the event that the required legal agreement is not concluded within four months of the date of the consideration of this application by committee, the application should be refused for the following reason:
The proposal relates to the development of eight dwellings, which triggers a requirement for affordable housing provision by virtue of the operation of Policy HOU 2 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' Modified Finalised Draft 2006. In the absence of any on-site provision to secure long- term affordability of two of the eight units as required by this policy, or any agreed mechanism to secure equivalent provision off-site, the proposal would be contrary to Policy HOU 2 and the advice given in the government’s Planning Advice Note 74 ‘Affordable Housing’, in that it would fail to make specific provision to meet local housing needs.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\6\1\AI00034166\0700322DETREPORT0.DOC
Page 107 Page 108
This page is intentionally left blank Page 109 Argyll and Bute Council Agenda Item 10 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
14 March 2007 Page 1 of 8 Page 110 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
07/00381/NMA Mr And Mrs John Campbell 26/02/2007 08/03/2007 PER
Lagavurich South Glebe Kilkerran Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6RB
Erection of extension to dwelling house - non material amendment to size of extension
07/00315/NMA Mr And Mrs P Holmes 16/02/2007 02/03/2007 PER
Barmolloch Kilmichael Glen Argyll And Bute PA31 8RJ
Erection of dwelling, relocation of existing wall, installation of septic tank and soakaway - non material amendment - removal of wing and erection of lean-to to the existing exposed gable
07/00264/DET Mr And Mrs Aitken 09/02/2007 09/03/2007 PER
Land North Of Ferry Farm Tayinloan Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6XG
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank
07/00263/DET Mr J. E. Williamson 09/02/2007 06/03/2007 PER
5 Kingsway Kintyre Street Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6UP
Replacement windows
07/00212/NMA O2 Airwave Ltd 05/02/2007 15/02/2007 PER
South Glencreggan Cottage Glenbarr Argyll PA29 6UT
Installation of 2no. transmission dishes and ancillary ground based equipment - non material amendment - increase in diameter of one of the transmission dishes from 1.2m to 2.4m in diameter
07/00208/DET Mr And Mrs A Lunn 02/02/2007 08/03/2007 PER
The Old Stables Furnace Argyll And Bute PA32 8XN Page 111
Removal of conservatory, erection of extension and rebuilding of conservatory
07/00207/TELNOT O2 Airwave Ltd 02/02/2007 26/02/2007 PER
BT Claggan Radio Station Kildalton Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Installation of 2 no. transmission dishes and 1 no. airwave equipment cabin
07/00203/DET Mr And Mrs A Howie 01/02/2007 05/03/2007 PER
2 Kennovay Cottages Tayvallich Argyll And Bute PA31 8PJ
Erection of extension - amended proposal
14 March 2007 Page 2 of 8 Page 112 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
07/00198/DET Mr And Mrs D Hosking 29/01/2007 09/03/2007 PER
Plot East Of Moondarra Crackaig Bay Craighouse Isle Of Jura Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwellinghouse and installation of septic tank
07/00189/LIB The Picture House (Campbeltown) Ltd 29/01/2007 19/02/2007 WDN
The Picture House Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6BU
Change of use of office (class 4) to Retail class 1 and alterations to form new entrance to cinema and installation of toilets
07/00187/COU The Picture House (Campbeltown) Ltd 29/01/2007 12/03/2007 PER
The Picture House 26 Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6BU
Change of use of office (class 4) to retail (class 1)
07/00185/NMA Mr And Mrs David Mayo 26/01/2007 12/02/2007 PER
Bellgrove High Askomil Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6EN
Internal and external alterations to dwelling house - non-material amendment - amendment to window
07/00183/DET Stephen Eccles And Jacqueline Barratt 25/01/2007 05/03/2007 PER
Newton Hall Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8UH
Change of use of dwelling to form 3 bedroom guest house
07/00181/ADV Burnbank Garage 26/01/2007 23/02/2007 PER
Burnbank Garage Burnbank Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute Page 113 PA28 6JD
Erection of signage
07/00164/ADV CWS Retail Financial Services 07/02/2007 07/03/2007 PER
Co Op Frederick Crescent Port Ellen Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA43 7JH
Erection of signage
07/00157/DET Michael Andrew Richardson 01/02/2007 09/03/2007 PER
Schoolhouse Cottage No 2 Carradale Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6QJ
Erection of a one and a half storey extension
14 March 2007 Page 3 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
07/00134/DET Mr And Mrs B. Baird 23/01/2007 23/02/2007 PER
1 Glen Park Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6SU
Erection of two storey extension to dwelling
07/00111/DET The Old Bookshop 18/01/2007 27/02/2007 PER
8 Cross Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6HU
Erection of replacement canopy and painting of shopfront (revised proposal)
07/00102/DET Mr And Mrs R Conley 15/01/2007 22/02/2007 PER
Land South Of Caledonia Lodge Carradale Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house and installation of a septic tank
07/00101/DET Donald McSporran And Alison Graham 12/01/2007 19/02/2007 PER
Land At Kildavie Farm Southend Argyll And Bute PA28 6RF
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank
07/00096/DET Mrs Judith Witts 15/01/2007 02/03/2007 PER
Drimfern Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8XJ
Extensions to dwelling house and erection of wind turbine
07/00082/DET Paul And Jacqueline Currie 17/01/2007 09/03/2007 PER
Plot B North Ardminish Farm Page 115 Isle Of Gigha Argyll PA41 7AA
Erection of dwelling house
07/00080/DET Victoria Hotel 25/01/2007 02/03/2007 PER
Victoria Hotel 67 Argyll Street Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8NE
Formation of acoustic lobby at beer garden
07/00073/COU Carillion Regional Civil Engineering 01/02/2007 12/03/2007 PER
Dunlossit Estate Port Askaig Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Temporary change of use from agricultural land to contractors' compound in association with Port Askaig redevelopment
14 March 2007 Page 4 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
07/00067/DET Mr And Mts Wilkieson 11/01/2007 05/03/2007 PER
New Quay South Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD
Erection of extension
07/00066/COU J Vallis 17/01/2007 27/02/2007 PER
3 Main Street East Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8TP
Change of use of store to Class 1 retail
07/00048/DET Hawkbrook Ltd 27/12/2006 12/02/2007 PER
Low Smerby Farm Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6QW
Erection of dwelling house
07/00043/DET Mr And Mrs G Conley 04/01/2007 12/02/2007 PER
91 Roading Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6LU
Rear extension to dwelling
07/00022/DET Argyll College UHI Ltd 12/01/2007 02/03/2007 PER
Site 18 Kilmory Industrial Estate Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8RR
Erection of wind turbine
07/00018/NID Director Of Community Services 17/01/2007 26/02/2007 PER
Gortanvogie Home Gortonvogie Road Bowmore Isle Of Islay Page 117 Argyll And Bute PA42 7JB
Erection of extension to form sunroom
06/02670/DET Mr Adrian J Angus 20/12/2006 02/03/2007 PER
11A Union Street Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8JS
Replacement front windows to first floor flat
06/02643/OUT F Campbell 18/12/2006 08/02/2007 PER
Land North Of Sunnyside Glenbarr Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6UZ
Site for erection of dwelling house
14 March 2007 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
06/02595/DET Tayvallich Estate 08/12/2006 06/03/2007 PER
Plot 350 Metres North Of Tayvullin Tayvallich Argyll And Bute
Erection of farmworker's dwelling and installation of septic tank
06/02561/DET KCS Argyll Ltd 07/12/2006 12/03/2007 PER
Garden Ground Of Tigh Na Drochit Tayinloan Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank
06/02545/DET M And K MacLeod Ltd 01/12/2006 02/03/2007 PER
Castleton Forest Castleton Argyll And Bute
Engineering works in connection with formation of forestry access (part retrospective)
06/02544/DET John And Suse Coon 04/12/2006 14/02/2007 PER
Garden Ground Of Glenreasdale Whitehouse Argyll And Bute PA29 6XR
Erection of dwelling house, garage and greenhouse
06/02525/VARCO Mr And Mrs Peter McConnachie 29/11/2006 26/02/2007 PER N Land North Of Airdaluinn High Askomil Campbeltown Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house - variation of condition no. 6 of consent Ref 04/01957/DET
06/02524/DET Mr Rob Nolan And Ms Louise Duncan 27/11/2006 06/02/2007 PER
Land North West Of North Beachmore Muasdale Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house Page 119 06/02522/LIB The Picture House (Campbeltown) Ltd 12/12/2006 12/03/2007 WDN
The Picture House Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6BU
Installation of internally mounted neon script sign
06/02520/DET Mr And Mrs Gilthorpe 30/11/2006 13/02/2007 PER
11 Fernoch Crescent Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8AE
Erection of extension and decking
14 March 2007 Page 6 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
06/02507/COU Philip Chatten 17/01/2007 12/03/2007 PER
Barrichbeyan Park
Ardfern
Argyll And Bute
PA31 8QW
Use of land for the siting of a container for use as a chill and cutting room
06/02394/MIN An Suidhe Windfarm Ltd 10/11/2006 05/02/2007 PER
Borrow Pit 2 An Suidhe Windfarm East Lochaweside Argyll And Bute
Extraction of rock for use to upgrade forestry tracks, road and hard standing associated in windfarm construction
06/02258/DET Mr And Mrs Murray 20/10/2006 26/02/2007 WDN
Clachan Bowmore Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA43 7JF
Erection of rear extension and front porch
06/02234/DET Roland David Pullen 30/10/2006 09/03/2007 PER
Bothy Land South East Of Ugadale Farm Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QR
Redevelopment of bothy to form dwelling
06/02169/NMA N Power Renewables 02/10/2006 19/02/2007 PER
An Suidhe Windfarm East Lochaweside Argyll And Bute
Erection of wind farm comprising 24 turbines, transformers, site tracks and other ancillary works - non material amendment relating to application 01/01318/DET - amendment to on-site tracks Page 121 06/01918/DET Mr And Mrs Chessor Matthew 31/08/2006 15/02/2007 PER
Land South West Of Mill Cottage Machrihanish Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house
06/01706/OUT Mr And Mrs Johnstone 09/08/2006 12/03/2007 PER
Land North East Of Auchencorvie Farm
Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6PH
Erection of two dwelling houses and installation of septic tank
06/01641/DET Paul And Amanda Phare 28/07/2006 02/03/2007 PDD
Land West Of Keills House Tayvallich Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house
14 March 2007 Page 7 of 8 Page 122 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
06/01481/DET Mr And Mrs S. Barnes 07/07/2006 14/02/2007 PER
Land North Of Cherry Trees Lochgair Argyll
Erection of a detached dwelling and garage
06/01414/DET Mr John Elias-Jones 29/06/2006 01/03/2007 PER
Plot 11S Craobh Haven Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8UA
Erection of dwelling house
06/01357/DET Mr Philip Parr 26/06/2006 15/02/2007 PER
Land South East Of Eurach Ford Argyll And Bute
Erection of a dwellinghouse
06/01245/DET Mr Seamus Kelly 13/06/2006 WDN
Ground North East Of Kildonald Cottage Ballochgair Peninver Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6RQ
Erection of dwelling house
06/00938/DET Fiona MacAlpine 12/05/2006 16/02/2007 PER
Tigh A Bhata Tarbert Road Ardrishaig Argyll And Bute PA30 8ER
Demolition of existing dwelling, erection of replacement dwelling and installation of sewage treatment plant Page 123 14 March 2007 Page 8 of 8 Page 124
This page is intentionally left blank Page 125 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING STANDARDS DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE 04/00602/ERD/A M MacIntyre 12/02/2007 27/02/2007 27/02/2007 WARAPP
Garden Ground Of Knapdale Cottage Crinan Lochgilphead Argyll
Erection of an 8 apt timber framed two storey dwelling house - amendment to warrant 04/00602/ERD granted 21 May 2004 - corner W.C to en-suite in master bed and reposition svp. Delete understair doors to bedroom and doors to cupboard in bedroom, delete timber cladding to elevation and substitute wet dash roughcast.
04/01984/ALT/A Scott And Sue Woods 21/02/2007 09/03/2007 09/03/2007 WARAPP
Cornwall Barmore Road Tarbert Argyll PA29 6TW
Internal alterations to ground floor flat to relocate bathroom and form open plan lounge kitchen - amendment to Warrant 04/01984/ALT granted 11 March 2005 - layout as built.
04/02149/ALT/B Education Department 09/01/2007 30/01/2007 08/03/2007 WARAPP
Kilchattan Primary School Isle Of Colonsay PA61 7YR
Alterations to alter layout of school to incorporate new access ramps, new WC and new door opening between classrooms- amendment to warrant 04/02149/ALT granted 22 November 2004 - delete ramp at rear, create accessible W/C in existing toilet area in view of creating new accessible W/C. Form new external door opening on front elevation, reconfigure internal storage arrangements. 05/01024/ERECT/A Mr And Mrs Casey 06/02/2007 14/02/2007 23/02/2007 WARAPP
Plot 750m South East Of McGinty Yard Cairnbaan Lochgilphead Argyll
Erection of dog kennels - amendment to warrant 05/01024/ERECT granted 16th August 2005- change from quarantine and stray dog kennels to proprietory dog cabins
05/01558/STG/A Barr Construction 26/02/2007 01/03/2007 01/03/2007 WARAPP
Rothesay Primary School And Land To The West Of Primary School Townhead Rothesay Isle Of Bute
Construction of a new joint campus school, Stage 1, foundations - amendment to warrant reference number 05/01558/STG granted 28 December 2005 - changes to foundation design to reflect as built
06/00073/CONV04/A Whyte + MacKay Ltd 05/01/2007 30/01/2007 28/02/2007 WARAPP
Isle Of Jura Distillery Co Craighouse Isle Of Jura PA60 7XT
Internal alterations to existing structure with new services throughout. (Retrospective) - Amendment to warrant 06/00073/CONV04 granted 4 September 2006 - Omission of fireplaces to bedrooms 1,3 and 5 and installation of extract fans to all bathrooms
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 14 March 2007 Page 1 of 5 Page 126 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING STANDARDS DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE 06/00224/ERECT Scottish Water 23/02/2006 14/03/2006 08/03/2007 WARAPP
Water Treatment Works Miller's Park Saddell Argyll And Bute PA28 6RA
Erection of a new steel frame building around existing building with a 2.0m x 1.0m annex extension at front of building`
06/00290/ALTER/B Morrison Bowmore Distillers Ltd 14/02/2007 27/02/2007 28/02/2007 WARAPP
Morrison Bowmore Distillers Ltd School Street Bowmore Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA43 7JS
Alterations to visitor centre, involving partial demolition and re-building - amendment to Building Warrant 06/00290/ALTER granted 18 May 2006 - addition of LPG stove to dram hall (and renovation of existing bar area)
06/01039/ERECDW Mr And Mrs Tait 24/07/2006 01/08/2006 12/03/2007 WARAPP
Plot 4 Land At Kilnaughton The Oa Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Erection of a 9 apartment single storey timber framed dwelling house with integral garage, and septic tank with irrigation system
06/01078/ALTEXT Campbeltown Hospital 01/08/2006 07/08/2006 19/02/2007 WARAPP
Campbeltown Hospital Ralston Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6LE
Extension to form palliative care sun room and internal alterations
06/01127/ERECDW Mr And Mrs A Milne 10/08/2006 17/08/2006 01/03/2007 WARAPP
Arichonan Tayvallich Argyll And Bute PA31 8PG
Erection of a two storey 9 apartment traditional built dwelling house and installation of 6000 litre septic tank and soakway.
06/01374/ALTER Mr D Clark 09/10/2006 19/10/2006 12/03/2007 WARAPP
George Hotel Main Street East Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8TT
Alteration to existing staff bedrooms
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 14 March 2007 Page 2 of 5 Page 127 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING STANDARDS DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE 06/01380/CONV01 Mr And Mrs A Stewart 05/10/2006 18/10/2006 08/03/2007 WARAPP
Byre Adjacent To The Castle Lochgair Argyll And Bute PA31 8SD
Convert outbuilding to habitable use forming bedroom, store and shower room, form storage extension and install new oil storage tank.
06/01381/ERECDW West Highland Housing Association Ltd 04/10/2006 19/10/2006 01/03/2007 WARAPP
Proposed Plots 3 4 5 And 6 Special Needs House West Of Burnside Craighouse Isle Of Jura Argyll And Bute
Erection of 4 semi-detached houses
06/01414/CONV10 Chief Executive 23/10/2006 25/10/2006 22/02/2007 WARAPP
Burnett Building Campbeltown Public Library Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6BJ
Alterations and change of use from museum and library to museum, offices, meetings and ceremonies suite
06/01424/ERECDW Paul And Barbara Holness 19/10/2006 03/11/2006 22/02/2007 WARAPP
Land To The South Of Barmolloch Cottages Kilmichael Glen Argyll
Erection of a 2 storey 5 apartment timber framed dwelling with associated sewage treatment plant
06/01454/ERECFL M And K Macleod Ltd 30/10/2006 09/11/2006 06/03/2007 WARAPP
Former Brewery Depot 44 Argyll Street Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute
Demolish former brewery depot and store and erect six 3 apartment timber framed flats and new store
06/01483/EXTEND Janet Smith 03/11/2006 09/11/2006 19/02/2007 WARAPP
Strongarbh Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6UG
Single storey extension to form an un-heated conservatory
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 14 March 2007 Page 3 of 5 Page 128 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING STANDARDS DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE 06/01517/ALTEXT Miss MacKay 09/11/2006 20/11/2006 19/02/2007 WARAPP
14 Burnside Bruichladdich Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA49 7UR
Single storey front extension to form a heated conservatory with hallway window altered to form doorway into such
06/01526/EXTEND Peter And Amanda Minshall 15/11/2006 16/11/2006 26/02/2007 WARAPP
Barr-Na-Criche Dunmore Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YA
Extension to dwelling to form utility room with patio roof deck
06/01587/MULTIP Campbeltown Hospital 29/11/2006 15/12/2006 08/03/2007 WARAPP
Campbeltown Hospital Ralston Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6LE
Erection of new canopy and entrance lobby and internal alteration
07/00026/EXTEND Mr And Mrs Wyllie 21/12/2006 12/01/2007 01/03/2007 WARAPP
Smithy Croft Clachan Argyll And Bute PA29 6XL
Single storey conservatory extension to rear of dwelling and removal of existing rear porch
07/00040/EXTEND Mr And Mrs A McGhee 28/12/2006 12/01/2007 05/03/2007 WARAPP
2 Distillery Houses Caol Ila Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA46 7RJ
Erection of an unheated conservatory to rear of dwelling with French door access into such from previous window opening
07/00093/EXTEND Mr Hugh Semple 23/01/2007 05/02/2007 07/03/2007 WARAPP
Creag Fasgadh Tayvallich Argyll And Bute PA31 8PL
Erection of a timber framed rear extension, with erection of a garage to front with integrated decking.
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 14 March 2007 Page 4 of 5 Page 129 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING STANDARDS DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE 07/00109/ALTEXT Mr And Mrs A O'May 25/01/2007 12/02/2007 07/03/2007 WARAPP
89 Ralston Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6LG
Single storey rear extension to form conservatory and alterations to kitchen window to form access into such
07/00112/DEMOL Argyll Community Housing Association 26/01/2007 07/02/2007 16/02/2007 WARAPP
Parliament Place Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6HP
Demolition of existing houses at Parliament Place, Broad Street and Park Square
07/00134/ALTER Mr And Mrs R Gilmore 02/02/2007 19/02/2007 05/03/2007 WARAPP
Largiemore Farm Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6QD
Proposed internal alterations and replacement porch
07/00148/MULTIP Ms R Armistead 08/02/2007 14/02/2007 01/03/2007 WARAPP
Portachoillan Clachan Argyll And Bute PA29 6XN
Alterations to form bathroom to first floor and installation of velux rooflights
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 14 March 2007 Page 5 of 5 Page 130
This page is intentionally left blank Page 131 Agenda Item 11
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING OF MID ARGYLL PARTNERSHIP held in DALRIADA HOUSE, LOCHGILPHEAD on TUESDAY 20 February 2007
1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from: Dee Lyon, Colin Hossack, Linda Haig, and Deirdre Forsyth.
A welcome was given to the new representative from Ardrishaig Community Council.
2. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 21 NOVEMBER 2006
The minutes of the Meeting held on 21 November 2006 were submitted and approved.
3. MATTERS ARISING
The Bus stop at Minard has still not been installed Item 8 – update on waiting time – still to be done. Japanese Knotweed – experiments are ongoing in designated areas of Argyll and Bute. A discussion took place on whether on-site or off-site disposal procedures should be followed. Ian Macintyre will check this out. Item 9g – Craignish School – no progress to report until the new financial year. Item 4 – The formation of steps – Sheila to e-mail Judy Wakker of Scottish Water and ascertain the situation.
4. SCOTTISH WATER
The group were concerned that there was no representation from Scottish Water present and asked that an update on the items discussed at the November meeting be obtained.
5. FORESTRY COMMISSION/SNH
Andy Buntin reported that the Eredine to Auchindrain route will be opened on the 5 April, in conjunction with the Auchindrain Museum. The Beinn Ghuilean Cycle route will be opened on 18 May in conjunction with the Aqualibrium. Walk to School week is between 21 -25 May and 4 schools have been highlighted as to be included in this programme. Andy distributed some ‘Events 2007’ leaflets which gives information on all forthcoming events.
6 STRATHCLYDE POLICE
No report.
Page 132
7 BRITISH WATERWAYS SCOTLAND
David Clarkson representing British Waterways explained that he is the Customer Operations Supervisor for the Crinan Canal. There is restructuring taking place and the Crinan Canal will now come under the same management as the Caledonian Canal (Highland). Alex Howie is in charge of boats etc while David will manage the operations side of the business. Work is ongoing with this winters programme but due to a new allocation of £300,000 the programme will be extended by two weeks until 19 March to allow the extra work to be done. A meeting has been arranged for 11 a.m. on the 3 March at Cairnbaan Hotel, to discuss the new management, berthing strategy, yachting development etc. Invites have been sent to some organisations and to local businesses and any members of the Mid Argyll Partnership would be most welcome to go along and give their views. David will check that the local marinas, boat/yacht clubs are invited. He will also ensure that there is adequate seating placed along the canal banks.
8 COMMUNITY CARE ISSUES No report
9 COMMUNITY COUNCILS
9a Ardrishaig Jeanette Laughton reported that there were four new elected members and that a very interesting first meeting held on 6 February. Over thirty members of the public attended. A talk was given on ‘Area for Action’ and the council representatives promised to keep the community involved in future discussions and planning work. Concern was expressed about speeding through the village and the local police liaison officer agreed to look into this along with the problems of vandalism at the primary school. A CCTV is to be installed to help alleviate these problems. The community are also fighting the possible closure of the local post office. The Community Council is still in contact with Scottish Water regarding various unsolved problems.
9b Dunadd The publication of a Community Newspaper is in its final stages. Chirsty Hamilton, the editor, hopes that it will be published mid-March. The aim of the paper is to encourage the community to understand and to become more involved in the workings of the Community Council. Local organisations will be able to advertise their group’s forthcoming events. They have written expressing the communities concern over Post Office closures. The Planning Department has passed a ‘change of use’ for the Lachlan Miller hall and when two valuations have been received to will be advertised for sale as a private residence. A speaker will be attending their next meeting to explain the new voting system for the forthcoming election. Page 133
9c Inveraray A new Steering Group which includes the Argyll Estates along with the local private and business sector has been set up to maintain the Conservation areas of the town. Discussions are ongoing regarding a site for the new Health Centre. Concerns have been expressed about preserving Loch Fyne.
9d Lochgilphead The new crossing in Lochnell Street has been completed as have the drop pavements on Manse Brae. A 20 mph restriction will be implemented shortly in Argyll Street. This will be mandatory. A discussion took place regarding the implications of this when most of the ’20’s plenty’ signs are not mandatory. The red signs are enforceable while the green ones are not. Scottish Water is due to dig up part of Lochnell Street but it is hoped that this will not take place until after the summer season. Two properties on Argyll Street, which require maintenance, should be painted within the near future.
9e South Knapdale Concern that traffic is still breaking the verges on the A8024. It is felt that the current maintenance is inadequate. It is hoped that repairs will start March/April.
9f West Lochfyne Most of the community’s complaints are with TranServ Scotland. No bus stop, no 20’s plenty signs, overgrown shrubs at Upper Lochgair and mud on the pathways. One of the committee has tackled some of these problems himself. Alison Hay will speak with TranServ. Andy Law promised an edict that waste litter would be dealt with but this does not seem to have happened. Sheila Cameron to contact Andy Law regarding this.
9g Craignish The community have been digesting the Scottish Executive paper on ‘How can we help Community Councils’. Alison Hay explained that after the elections in May, Local Forums may take over the role of the Area Committee, or they may work in conjunction with each other. Any changes will be decided by the newly elected Councillors. A discussion on the 1.9 increase in the Council Tax took place and it was felt that while pleased at the small increase, it was at a cost. It was felt that a Council spend of £500,000 on a roundabout at the entrance to the Industrial Estate was excessive. Craignish Community Council did not receive information regarding the ‘Marine Park’ but have been kept informed by North Knapdale Community Council. Alison Hay agreed that the Scottish Executive’s organisation left a lot to be desired.
Page 134
9h Furnace Andrea Henderson has now been appointed Secretary.
Furnace have written to Post Watch Scotland and the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) enclosing a petition of over 270 signatures (which included virtually everyone in the community). They noted with interest and disappointment that both DTI and Post Watch Scotland expressed a preference for responses to be emailed rather than posted.
Issues regarding road repairs and road sweeping are ongoing with the Road Department.
Radio Fyneside – while waiting for a response from OFCOM to the application for a Licence, has published a website which is being heavily used ( www.radiofyneside.co.uk ) Some Community Councils are already listed on the website with contact details. All Community Councils will be welcome to send contact details: notices of Meetings and agendas which will be posted under events. While this information is being channelled via Furnace Community Council, it is important to point out that Radio Fyneside is a Community Interest Company serving equally all Upper Loch Fyneside (including Kilmartin Glen to Ford).
9i Tarbert & Skipness Only two members of the public were at the last meeting. There was a public meeting organised by local businesses objecting to the proposed planning application for a Barge restaurant in the Harbour. The Community Council have agreed to wait until the Planning application has been made before coming to any decision.
Discussions with Scottish Water are ongoing regarding the Harbour wall.
Tracks that were dug up for new electricity cables at the bottom of School Road and Harbour Street have now been filled in three times in the last two weeks. Promises of redeveloping the old boat yard site have not yet materialised.
This site would be ideal for additional parking spaces as no parking is now permitted on the Harbour wall. Another alternative would be the infill of part of the Harbour.
The burn at the bottom of Lady Eileen Road near the new health centre is unfenced. Donnie Mcleod is to be advised of this immediately.
The trees at the Industrial Estate at Ardminish are obstructing vision and need to be cut back. Sheila to write to TranServ regarding this matter.
9j North Knapdale No report.
Page 135
10 COUNCIL REPORTS
10a Operational Services It is important that member of Operational Services attend future meetings.
10b Community Services Felicity Kelly explained changes taking place within the Community Learning and Regeneration programme. In April there will be new regulations coming into force which will affect all those working with vulnerable adults. Thanks to the hard work of the Lochgilphead Community Centre Council, the Centre has had a major refurbishment: - internal painting and a new kitchen. Further plans to erect a front porch are already being discussed. Lochgilphead Community Centre is the most used centre within Argyll and Bute. In November 5300 folk used the building.
The Mid Argyll Youth Project is upgrading one room enabling it to be used to down load music. It will have a wireless link from the MAYP building to the Community Centre computer room. MAYP have an application into the lottery for funding to pay for a full time co-ordinator and trainer.
The closing date for Argyll and Bute Council grants is the 22 nd March 2007 and all groups will be advised that some money will be allocated in April while the remainder will not be issued until June.
Felicity reminded us that the Argyll and Bute Trust (which has nothing to do with the Council) has limited funds which are available to individuals and to Organisations. Contact Mr James Kirk, Duntiblae, Wilson Road, Lochgilphead for application forms.
There is a new Community Learning Development Strategy being written and it is important that members of the Mid Argyll Partnership take every opportunity, during consultations, to ensure that this also covers the Mid- Argyll area, which in the previous strategy being geographically targeted, was not included.
Cost of hiring Mini Buses has increased. £20 + vat for up to 4 hours and £40 + vat per day.
Donnie McMillan took this opportunity to thank Felicity, her staff and the members of the Centre Council for the good work that they do for the community.
11 ANY OTHER BUSINESS A Road Show to explain the new voting system has been arranged and the provisional date for Lochgilphead is the 24 th March at the Co-op.
12 DATES FOR NEXT MEETING – 12th June.
Page 136
SEDERUNT SHEET
Mid Argyll Partnership
20 February 2007
Alison Hay Argyll and Bute Council Donnie McMillan Argyll and Bute Council Andrea Henderson Furnace Community Council Hazel Jackson West Lochfyne Community Council David N Starck South Knapdale Community Council Mary Smyth Craignish Community Council Colin Smith Craignish Community Council Marion Thomson Dunadd Community Council Ian Y Macintyre Tarbert & Skipness Community Council Jeanette Laughton Ardrishaig Community Council Andy Buntin Forestry Commission Felicity Kelly Argyll and Bute Council – Community Regeneration Katie McKenzie Argyll and Bute Council - Corporate Services Sheila Cameron Argyll and Bute Council – Corporate Services
Page 137 Agenda Item 12
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL KINTYRE AND ISLAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AREA COMMITTEE MEETING
CAMPBELTOWN: HERITAGE-LED REGENERATION REPORT ON PROGRESS WITH THE CONSERVATION AREA REGENERATION SCHEME BID TO THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND FOR A TOWNSCAPE HERITAGE INITIATIVE
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The contract for Campbeltown’s Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS) was signed at the end of January this year and the project is getting off to a good start. 1.2 The Council has been invited to bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for a Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI). Formal Member support is required to make this bid, which is due in by 8 th May 2007.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That Members note the progress of the Campbeltown CARS. 2.2 That Members support the submission of a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for a Townscape Heritage Initiative.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 After an extremely successful public launch in October 2006, the Campbeltown Conservation Area regeneration scheme (CARS) is getting off to a good start. Grants have been offered towards the repair of two prominent shopfronts and the first phase of repairs and enhancement at the Burnett Building. Initial work is progressing well on the two major Priority A buildings, the Old Court House and the Old School, where grant-aided propping works have prevented a major collapse. Grant application forms have been sent out to encourage a variety of high-level repair works. Recruitment of a Project Officer will be key to consolidating the scheme and progressing it further.
3.2 Campbeltown was the subject of a failed bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for a Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) a few years ago. In light of this, and with the initial success of the CARS, our strategy was to make a renewed THI bid eventually. We are now being encouraged by both Historic Scotland and the HLF to bid for a Campbeltown THI in the current round. Page 138
3.2 With recognition of the Aqualibrium project through the prestigious Scottish Award for Quality in Planning Campbeltown is now a national focus for regeneration work. The panel of judges have expressed the hope that Aqualibrium “will be the catalyst for further regeneration in Campbeltown” which they describe as a “remote fragile community”.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 A THI bid is the logical next step in the process of bringing regeneration to Campbeltown.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy: This is consistent with Council policy
Financial: None We will use the current MAKI commitment of £200,000 plus Historic Scotland’s contribution of £382,500 plus £80,000 from AIE as potential match funding for the THI bid.
Personnel: One part-time post We intend to recruit a part-time Project Officer to run the CARS - part-funded by Historic Scotland. If the THI bid is successful we would like to extend this to a full-time post, with the extra time part- funded by the HLF. Staff time / consultant If successful at Stage 1, staff will be required to develop the bid to Stage 2. This work would be grant-aided by the HLF.
Community: There will be a high level of community engagement in this project
For further information contact: Jenny Carlile
Telephone 01546 604277
Head of Planning Services
Page 139 Agenda Item 13
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 16 January 2006
CAMPBELTOWN AND KINTYRE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
1. SUMMARY
1.1 This report is an update on the progress made by the partner organisations with the Campbeltown & Kintyre Action Plan which followed on from the Yellow Book study.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That Members note the contents.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The July Committee agreed the Campbeltown and Kintyre Action Plan which was created in line with the themes identified in the Yellow Book report. Since then progress has been made by the various partners in all three themes.
Theme 1: Wealth Creation – 1.2 Kintyre Tourism Initiative has a number of on the ground projects a. The pipe band championship on the 5 May b. GHOST art initiative 9 – 15 April c. The banners project which is still in the assessment stage
Theme 2: Place Making 2.1 Campbeltown Town Centre Regeneration – AIE have completed 9 shop front improvements and are currently progressing another 15. A lot of time has been spent investigating options for the Kinloch Rd / Longrow area. The partners are currently getting layout plans for a mix of private and social housing, other commercial opportunities and car parking for the site. Once that is received we are considering all options to ensure such a development happens to transform the area.
The Quarry Green railings are now complete. Some tidying up required adjacent to the footway and to install park benches. Railings are being purchased for Hall Street sea frontage, cost at £15,000 being paid for from parking budget 2006/07. If the £10,000 allocated from the area Page 140
committee can transfer into next financial year, 2007/08 then this can be added to the £25,000 allocated and may well pay for a new footway surface. 2.2 Key Buildings and Sites –expecting imminent tenders for the Burnett building. The Dell Road offices have now been sold. The rationalisation of depots investigation is still ongoing.
Theme 3 – Tackling exclusion 3.5 Communities Scotland has funded a feasibility study for ACHA to investigate options for a community centre. 3.6 Communities Scotland, Fyne Homes and the Council have been working together to commission a housing opportunities study for central Campbeltown. The linkage of ACHA’s housing investment to the Kinloch Road regeneration proposals is well underway through the working group, and the extension of the association’s Park Square development within their business plan to encompass the wider area. Demarcation lines have also been agreed defining the areas of activity of ACHA and Fyne Homes within the town. Communities Scotland’s current 5 year investment programme proposes investment of approaching £8m in Campbeltown to 2011/12. If private finance is added to this amount (raised by RSLs on their rental income) plus subsidy to ACHA for stock improvements, the total over the 5 year period will approach £10.5m.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 Significant progress is being made in various areas and this work should expand and continue to meet the timescales. 5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy:
Financial:
Personnel:
Equal Opportunity: None For further information contact: Andrew Robertson ` Telephone 4243
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS: Campbeltown & Kintyre Action Plan
Campbeltown & Kintyre Action Plan
Theme 1: Wealth Creation
Measure Action Lead Role Subsidiary Budget Timescale Priority Role 1.1 Key Companies: To proactively seek to grow the business start Argyll and the No Ongoing High up rate within Kintyre in particular targeting Islands additional those that offer significant growth Enterprise budget. opportunities. Target of 20 new starts within 3 years.
AIE From Ongoing High Page 141 To adopt an account management approach to existing support business investment that will secure resource employment or raise income levels. Key clients to include…Vestas Celtic, Machrihanish Marine Farms Ltd, Contact 4, Brightside Leisure.
To support businesses to increase investment AIE High in training and development. 1.2 Kintyre Tourism Work with the private sector to develop and Argyll and the Kintyre 2006/2008 Medium – Initiative enhance the quality of the tourism product Islands Marketing High while encouraging new product development Enterprise Group / through improved collaboration and VisitScotland encouraging innovation Forestry Commission Scotland Work with Private Sector to maximise the AIE and High business benefits from the launch of the Private Sector Kintyre Way, the West Coast Whisky Trail and other Activity Based Tourism
Work with the Community to support the Kintyre ABC, AIE High Page 142 development of existing and potential events Initiative and and Cultural and festivals in the areas to enhance the visitor ADG Forum? experience of Kintyre
Theme 2: Place Making
Measure Action Lead Role Subsidiary Budget Timescale Priority Role 2.1 Campbeltown Town Implement Shop Front Improvement AIE Traders £75K AIE, 2007 High Centre Regeneration : Scheme £25k private
To establish a working group to progress ABC,CS,AIE TBC 2006-07 High regeneration of the Kinloch Road area Audit of potential public realm actions ABC TBC 2007 High
Promote scheme of parking exclusion and of ABC Traders TBC 2006-7 High pedestrian priority for Burnside Square
Upgrade Quarry Green including railings, ABC Community, TBC 2006-007 Medium new railway and other features Schools, AIE
Identify and implement feasible upgrades to ABC ACHA, AIE, TBC 2006-07 Medium entrance to town Communities Scotland, Private Landowners Review Industrial/community use conflict at ABC 2007 Medium Bengullion Road
Page 143 2.2 Key Buildings and Campbeltown Conservation Area ABC AIE £0.5m 2006-2011 High Sites Regeneration Scheme
Facilitate re-use and promote upgrades of ABC £120K 2006 High Burnett building, Town Hall and Christian Institute.
Identify new use for Police Station Police ABC 2007 Medium
Identify new uses and market Dell Road and ABC Medium Witchburn Road offices.
Identify future use of Jaeger site AIE ABC 2007 Medium
Investigate options for rationalisation of ABC 2007 Medium Council Depots
Investigate feasibility of relocation of Gas ABC/AIE 2008-09 High Works
Theme 3: Tackling Exclusion
Measure Actions Lead Role Subsidiary Budget Timescale Priority Role 3.1 Information To establish (from existing data sources) the Job Centre AIE - 2006/07 High number, location and profile of local jobless Plus residents.
To analyse training and support requirements AIE, Careers Job Centre - 2006/07 High Page 144 necessary to link residents to existing and Scotland Plus emerging employment opportunities
3.2 Training Work with employers to develop tailored AIE Job Centre ? 2007 High training and support programmes linking Plus people to jobs
To focus on the non-work ready proportion of Job Centre Employability, ? 2007 High the local jobless population identifying Plus, ABC, Others specific training/support necessary AIE
3.3 Childcare To quantify the extent to which lack of AIE, ABC Job Centre ? 2006/07 High childcare facilities prevents take up of job Plus opportunities To identify childcare options and to put in AIE, ABC Job Centre 2007 High place the related training/facilities to meet this Plus, Argyll need College, Argyll Training 3.4 Construction To establish the potential number and type of Construction Job Centre - 2007 Medium Skills construction job opportunities arising from the Excellence Plus community ownership investment programme Team and other planned construction projects
To introduce, as a key component of partnering Construction Job Centre 2007 Medium agreements with contractors, local employment Excellence Plus targets commensurate with the value and Team duration of work programmes
To link into Action 2 above and investigate Construction Job Centre - 2006 Medium Page 145 opportunities with local schools to provide Excellence Plus early vocational construction training for Team appropriate pupils
3.5 Social Enterprise To establish firm linkages and joint working All, ADG - 2006 Medium with the local area development group (community Planning Partnership) in all aspects of physical, economic and social regeneration and on methods to tackle exclusion
To support and develop the social firm being All, ADG - 2006 Medium set up via the ADG
To investigate the potential range of social All, Area - 2006 Medium inclusion functions appropriate to the planned Development family/community centre and additional Group, funding sources available Communities Scotland
3.6 Housing To initiate a study to identify housing Communities AIE £10k 2007 Medium development opportunities within Scotland, Campbeltown town centre, including an RSLs, ABC ownership analysis and site/building evaluation in respect of suitability for housing or mixed housing/other development
To link Argyll Community Housing Communities Public 2007 to High Association’s planned housing investment in Scotland, Private? 2011 Page 146 Campbeltown to proposals for Kinloch RSLs, ABC, Road/Kinloch Park area (see theme 2 actions), AIE Fyne Homes development programme and other related public/private sector proposals
To identify a medium-term (5 years) housing Communities 2007 to High investment strategy and investment Scotland, 2011 programme for Campbeltown. RSLs, ABC
Page 147 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 1 Agenda Item 14 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 148
This page is intentionally left blank Page 149 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 150
This page is intentionally left blank Page 151 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 152
This page is intentionally left blank Page 153 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 154
This page is intentionally left blank Page 155 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 156
This page is intentionally left blank Page 157 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 158
This page is intentionally left blank