Public Document Pack

MINUTES of MEETING of OBAN LORN & THE ISLES AREA COMMITTEE held in the HALL, on MONDAY, 31 MARCH 2008

Present: Councillor Duncan MacIntyre (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Chalmers Councillor Mary-Jean Devon Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Donald MacDonald Councillor Neil MacKay

Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance & Risk Manager Ian MacIntyre, Area Team Leader, Planning Services Fiona Dickie, Corporate Services John Heron, Roads & Amenity Services

Mr Callum MacLachlainn, Applicant Mr Alan MacLean, Applicant Mr Frank Beaton, Applicant’s Agent

Mr Ronnie Campbell, Mull Community Council, Objector Ms Fiona Brown, Objector Mr Martin Cauldwall, on behalf of 13 Objectors Mr Paul Chauvet, Objector, (not on the list but is technically an objector)

1. APOLOGIES

Councillor Donald McIntosh Councillor Elaine Robertson

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest

3. 07/2093/OUT: PROPERTIES LTD: PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED SERVICING - LAND WEST OF GLENEVEN, PENNYGHAEL, ISLE OF MULL

The Chairman introduced the Members of the Area Committee and asked Mr Jackson to outline the representations and order of procedures for the meeting.

The Chairman then invited Mr MacIntyre, Planning Services, to address the Committee

Mr MacIntyre referred to the report dated 26 th October 2007 by the Head of Planning, which set out the basis of the planning assessment. As part of the planning application the applicant proposed to put in a public adoptable road, with private accesses off it. Mr MacIntyre added that there would be no development on the open space. The applicant hopes that a housing association would buy part of the site for affordable housing. Mr MacIntyre added that fifteen letters of objection had been received, but his recommendation is that the application be approved.

Mr. Beaton, Agent for the Applicant, emphasised that the application is for outline planning permission only at this time; the site is designated in the new Local Plan as a potential development area for mixed density housing with 25% affordability, and the proposals are in accordance with this designation; this ‘PDA’ allocation from a planning perspective is obviously very significant. The Local Plan has gone through public consultation without objections to this zoning; the site has a rather protracted planning history and he, prior to lodging this application, met Angus Gilmour on the site and agreed the areas where both felt development was appropriate, where the access needed to be and discussed what information the planning office would consider necessary to enable the application to be progressed positively. Considerable pre application works were undertaken. A topographical survey of the site showing all existing features; proposed site plan; planting scheme, letter from the project engineer stating why the access to the development has to be where it is, hydrological assessment of the Leidle water supply, archaeological assessment of the site and details on the drainage proposals were all submitted to Mr Gilmour at his request, who confirmed he was happy with the information provided and that an application could now be lodged for outline planning permission.

Although the application is for outline approval considerable thought has gone in to how the site could be developed and after the application was lodged Mr Beaton, Argyll Properties and their specialist consultants met with the planning department, roads department, Sepa, Scottish Water, etc., and resolved all issues that were raised in regard to the application.

Mr Beaton said the applicants propose to have a low lying courtyard type development on the flatter area to the fore with building forms similar in mass to the buildings that form the adjoining Hotel. This housing will be affordable and negotiations have take place with West Highland Housing Association Ltd. Housing along the lines shown on the relevant drawing is proposed on areas of ground that have been identified by Mr Gilmour and Mr Beaton as possibly being suitable and capable of absorbing development.

Mr Beaton pointed out that the rising ground and abundance of trees to the rear of the proposed site will greatly assist in containing the development so that ‘as a whole’ it will not be seen as an isolated feature. It will particularly contain the views of the proposed dwelling houses from the road and sea. He added that it is not expected that the development will breach the skyline, no matter where it is viewed from.

Although the application is for outline approval the applicant was asked by the planning department to provide indicative elevations showing the design principles. The dwellings shown are contemporary in appearance but do acknowledge the west highland vernacular. They will generally be dual pitched with natural slate, be rendered with a crisp white finish, have windows with a strong vertical emphasis and incorporate dormer windows, bay windows and other such features, all of which are traditional to the area. The detailing will be simple and robust and the massing and proportions derived from traditional Scottish housing. It is proposed also that a stone wall be constructed adjacent to the adopted road to a height of 1100 mm or so. This landscape feature will define the edge of the development. Strategic landscaping which is proposed to the rear will further help to integrate the development into its surrounding environment. The site is zoned for mixed use housing so the application is wholly consistent with planning policy.

Mr Ronnie Campbell spoke on behalf of Mull Community Council, saying the Community Council unanimously supports the objections lodged by the local Community Councillor for Pennyghael. The reasons for objections are: (1) the proposal for fourteen dwellings is too large, too dense and the layout is wholly inappropriate to the area. The amenity of the existing open space protection area will be seriously undermined. (2) the proposal is contrary to, and a major departure from, both the adopted local plan and the modified finalised draft local plan. The proposal does not accord with the existing settlement layout of the area resulting in a design wholly at odds with Pennyghael (3) the poorly thought through development proposals greatly risk the creation of a deserted settlement. The core of Pennyghael currently consists of ten houses – but four of these houses are new and were built recently as second homes. The settlement has already become a retirement dormitory. Social services will be unable to cope. (4) the proposal to re-route the road to Gleneven and into Pennyghael Forest will undermine the existing fragile economy. This is a public right of way and forest roads have been built to accommodate extraction of the mature forest. Under the proposed plan this would be impossible. (5) there is confusion over where the water for the development is to be taken from. The hydrological report is for the River Laidle while the plan shows water being taken from a small burn from the forest which reportedly dries up during summer months. During extraction of the timber neither source would be suitable. A waste water site, for a development of this size, should not be sited so close to the A849 with the discharge beside Pennyghael Bridge which is a very popular stopping place.

Mr Campbell concluded that the proposal is contrary to good design guidance and key planning policies. The Community Council would advise a complete rethink on the development of this site. Some development is desirable but it should be designed with the community to respect the settlement pattern and provide housing and jobs for local people.

Fiona Brown, Local Objector and Chair of Pennyghael Development Association, then spoke giving some brief details about the development of Pennyghael, being the area between the two Pennyghael signs at Kinloch and Pennycross, where in this distance of just over three miles there are 24 houses.

Nine of these houses have been built since 1990, with only two of the new houses being owner occupied. The remaining seven new houses plus one of the old houses are second homes for retirement or holiday houses, therefore occupied for only six months of the year. Of the sixteen permanently occupied houses, nine of them have occupants over the age on 70. Of the remaining seven houses, six are occupied by persons between the age of fifty and seventy. Only one is occupied by persons under the age of 50 and with a young family.

In the year 2000 this community realised that it was in decline. The Pennyghael Development Association was set up to investigate what, if anything, could be done about this. The Development Association identified Yards Field, the area West of the Pennyghael Hotel, as a possible development site and sought advice from Mull and Community Trust and their local Councillor, at that time Alistair MacDougall.

Their vision for the area was to create a geological ecological centre. This would bring jobs and encourage young people into the area. The plan was to have a centre with a bunk house for students, accommodation for tutors and three or four houses for let to local families or persons working at the centre.

With the help of Mull and Iona Community Trust, the Development Association became a registered charity and carried out a feasibility study to find out if there would be support for a geological ecological centre in Pennyghael. All the UK Universities and schools were canvassed, as users of such centres, and a very positive response was received.

At the same time the Development Association were in contact with Mr Yard of Tobermory with an aim for the community to purchase the land which he owned at that time, unaware that Argyll Properties had acquired the building rights for the field. Argyll Properties plans for the area are in direct conflict with what the community needs or wants.

The building of eight large houses, which will be sold as second homes for people to retire into, will just make matters worse as there are not social or medical services to support more houses of this type. The plan for six housing association houses, which will not even be considered until after four of the large houses have been built is certainly not what is required. At this very moment there is a need for housing for three local families. The community had already shown that Pennyghael needs to be developed to encourage younger members into our community and that is why at a public meeting to discuss the proposed new local plan the area was marked as a PDA.

Ms Brown said this did not mean that the Development Association would support a developer moving in to cut down the mature trees on the land, which has been done, or to build more houses of the sort which will only compound the problems already identified.

Mr Cauldwell then spoke on behalf of 13 objectors, saying he has a background in regeneration and strategic planning and lives and works on the . He said the objectors have reviewed the case for this development laid out in the application design statement by Argyll Properties and the appraisal prepared by the planning officers. The fuller analysis by planning officers is carried out in Appendix B of their report and the objectors have taken particular note of that. Both these documents refer to planning policies and guidance and the objectors feel that there are four reasons for objecting. Firstly they consider that the application is contrary to the national and local design guidance cited in the officer’s report. Secondly, they feel the proposal is fundamentally incompatible with key policies in the Local Plan. Thirdly they feel the conditions contained within the PDA mini development brief are ignored and, finally feel it fails to properly recognise Pennyghael’s planning status.

Mr Cauldwell asked the committee to look at key design matters, saying the settlement pattern is fundamental to good planning. The importance of settlement pattern is laid out clearly, and referred to excerpts from the planning report. He added that the objectors would have expected to see an analysis in these reports but none was provided. .

In the absence of such an assessment they propose that Pennyghael is a scattered settlement, with very small developments of 1 or 2 dwellings lying some distance apart. The dispersed layout of houses reflects the dominance of its rural features including the forest which is a local economic asset. This rural landscape interposes between the scattered developments and comes right up to the road and onto the shore side. This blend of rural environment and loch side setting along the road contributes to its spectacular scenic quality. This in the objectors views sums up the settlement pattern. Mr Cauldwell then asked that the proposed development be tested against that settlement pattern. The objectors believe the development being proposed by Argyll Properties is quite at odds with Pennyghael’s character as the proposed development is of a density found in towns and suburbs. It creates a large residential core with its own road network. It dominates the existing settlement and greatly exploits assets including the local water supply. It introduces 14 new dwellings in a settlement with a total of 10 dwellings. The objectors feel that the proposal is alien and looks more like Brookside Close than Pennyghael. The importance of settlement pattern is the focus of the concerns by Scottish Natural Heritage who commented that they were concerned that the spacing, density and layout of the proposed development pattern may not reflect the existing distinctive and traditional local settlement pattern. The proposal to insert a housing development into this setting has the potential to change the existing balance, and be contrary to the landscape character and its key features. Mr Cauldwell said this was regrettably not included in the officer’s report.

As well as settlement pattern SNH indicated its concerns on housing density stating that they are concerned that the density, scale and the prominence of the proposed development could affect negatively the local landscape in particular from the A489 road and from pedestrian routes. In the reports from the applicant and the officers there is no measurement of density – clearly a matter of concern for SNH - so the objectors undertook to do this. At present the density rate reflects the scattered character of the area. Within the settlement zone as defined in the proposals map there is 1 dwelling per 1.7 acres. And when completed, the development will have increased the density rate to 1 dwelling per .7 of an acre. That is an increase of 240% in the density rate. On the development site itself the density rate will be 1 dwelling per quarter acre – this is an increase of over 600% in the existing density rate. The objectors feel that surely that has to be described as over development.

Master planning was the next issue the objectors looked at. In the planning design guide and in PAN 44 (which was cited by the applicant) guidance recommends a master plan be carried out when larger scale housing is being introduced. In some cases it can be difficult to integrate a larger development and in this case SNH feel that a landscaping framework or master plan should be developed .

If there was a master plan in place, the objectors would have seen a whole area section which would have revealed how prominent this development would be, but none has been forthcoming, so the benefits of that process have been denied us. The absence of a master plan leaves everyone in the dark as to how this development will look against the settlement. The objectors feel that the process of master planning and proper appraisal would have led incontrovertibly to the conclusion that this proposal was wholly at odds with the settlement character in Pennyghael and that it would dominate the settlement.

The objectors have identified a series of failures to conform to Argyll and Bute’s existing planning policies in this proposal. Mr Cauldwell previously advised that layout was not considered, density was not considered - and here in Pennyghael there is no social infrastructure. The nearest doctor and the nearest school are both 9 miles away. This is a medium scale housing development in a minor settlement and is a major contravention of local plan policy.

The objectors feel that no exceptional case has been made either in the application or in the officers’ report, and they feel this is another serious omission. The objectors also feel that this will be a prominent development, as do SNH because of its scale. The officers report states that these houses will sit on platforms which will make it even more prominent!

Policy RUR 2 was not tested and no justification was therefore forthcoming.

The mini brief lists ENV1 and HOU1 as policies needing to be satisfied. The objectors felt they had shown previously that there was no an analysis of the proposed development against these policies. Similarly under issues to be resolved it states that a master plan is required, but no master plan was provided. The master plan process and the delivery of ancillary technical reports (which have been provided) are not the same thing, they are distinct contributions to a planning assessment.

Mr Cauldwell then challenged key statements in the applicant’s design statement and in the officer’s report in regard to Pennyghael’s status.

The objectors felt that the settlement zone currently contains 10 dwellings and is a minor settlement; the application fails in very specific terms to meet key design and planning policies, adding that they do not oppose harmonious development that fits with the settlement pattern; the developer needs through a settlement planning exercise and master planning exercise, carried out with the community, to come forward with thought-through alternatives for discussion.

Mr Cauldwell concluded that the objectors submit that this planning application fails on 6 distinct grounds -

- it does not recognise Pennyghael’s settlement pattern; - it disregards Pennyghael’s existing plot density; - it fails a fundamental requirement of local plan housing policy; - through over development and poor harmony it fails the requirements of key; environmental policies in the local plan; - it ignores proper design guidance at local and national level; and - it fails to carry out a masterplanning exercise in spite of this requirement.

The objectors feel this application should be rejected and the proposal should be rethought along with the community.

Mr Paul Chauvet, Objector, Local resident and Manager of Pennyghael Estate, said in 1963 the Forestry Commission purchased the Kinloch Plantation. at that time known as Carsaig Plantation, and were given an unrestricted servitude right of access to the land from the A849 at a point immediately to the west of Pennyghael Hotel, at that time known as the Clansman, up to Gleneven. With this right they were given power to construct roads, bridges and culverts or to improve existing roads, bridges and culverts on the route. In 1984 when the site of the house, Gleneven, was sold to the local authority the Forestry Commission granted a non exclusive servitude right of access to Gleneven over the same route as the local authority. In 1999 Participatiemaatschappij Epsilon BV, who own Pennyghael Estate, purchased the Kinloch Plantation from the Forestry Commission and were granted heritable and irredeemable unrestricted servitude rights of access over the afore mentioned route together with rights to construct roads, bridges and culverts as may be considered necessary to improve the same.

Mr Chauvet said Argyll Properties plan to remove the existing access road up to Kinloch Plantation and create a new access further to the west. The weight restrictions on this new access road will make it unsuitable for timber extraction, also the tight bends on the planned new access road will make it impossible for timber lorries to negotiate. Mr Chauvet has been told by Argyll and Bute Planning Office that this is not a planning issue, however he feels the effect the proposed housing development and associated services has on the local environment is a planning issue.

During the late sixties and early seventies the Forestry Commission planted the Kinloch Plantation with a crop of conifers, the predominant species being Sitka Spruce. These are a shallow rooted species which unless harvested in the next ten to twenty years will simply blow over.

In 2000 Pennyghael Estate spent in excess of one hundred thousand pounds constructing a road network from Gleneven to facilitate timber extraction from the Kinloch Plantation. This was carried out with full consultation and approval by the Forestry Commission, Argyll and Bute Transportation and property departments. Due to the topography of the Kinloch Plantation this was deemed the only suitable site for access to extract timber.

Mr Chauvet feels that if the proposed housing development is granted permission in its current format Pennyghael estate will be unable to harvest the timber from the Kinloch Plantation. This will result in an area in excess of 400 hectares resembling a third world disaster site. It will be unsafe for public access and enjoyment and will be a blot on the landscape for miles around for future generations.

Mr Chauvet continued Argyll Properties propose to site the waste water treatment plant on a Greenfield sensitive area. Pennyghael Estate have always understood that this Greenfield area would not be developed. When the forest roads were constructed in the Kinloch Plantation the estate owners believed that they could harvest and extract the trees to the west of the road along the east bank of the river Leidle. The steep nature of this area of the plantation would make it uneconomical to winch the timber up to the new forest road. He said siting the waste water treatment plant on the Greenfield area would block the harvesting of this area of the plantation.

Mr Chauvet added that there are three thousand hectares of commercial forest on the Ross of Mull. At present there is no viable economic way of taking the timber off or utilizing the timber on the Island. Over the past three years Pennyghael Estate has been working in partnership with Associated British Ports and UPM Tilhill on a four million pound development to construct a pier to ship timber from the Ross of Mull direct to the market. This is the final piece of the jigsaw for a sustainable forestry industry on the Ross of Mull. He believes it will deliver long term full time jobs and prosperity to the Ross of Mull. Despite the large sums of money involved the margins are very slight. If, due to the proposed housing development, we are unable to harvest the Kinloch Plantation the pier will not be constructed. This will have disastrous consequences for the whole timber industry on the Ross of Mull which has started by the Forestry Commission over forty years ago.

Argyll Properties have commissioned a Hydrological Assessment of the river Leidle, but this assessment does not appear to take into account that for over two kilometers the river Leidle is bordered by commercial forestry which is due for harvest over the next twenty years. Inevitably there will be some contamination of the river during harvesting operations and this would make the river unsuitable as a drinking water supply.

Argyll Properties have commissioned an Otter Survey and the one recommendation in the Otter Survey was that areas of scrub associated with the feeder burn should be retained to provide cover. Both willow scrub and silver birch trees directly on the feeder burn have been felled by Argyll Properties. Otters are an internationally protected species and as such Argyll Properties have broken international law. A total of 21 trees, amounting to 16 cubic meters of timber have been felled by Argyll Properties over a period of two and a half days. Argyll and Bute Council state that the trees were not protected. But by law you can only fell 5 cubic meters per calendar quarter without a felling licence. Some of these trees were in excess of one hundred years old and Mr Chauvet believes at least two of the trees have been felled on land not owned by Argyll Properties.

In Argyll Properties Planning and Design Statement they state that the development would not compete with an established tree line and the overriding factor in the design of the development has been the insertion within this attractive landscape. So why have they cut down all the mature trees on the site.

Mr Chauvet concluded saying he hoped the committee appreciated the devastating effect this proposed housing development will have on the environment and economy of the whole of the Ross of Mull and will turn down the planning application.

The Chairman then invited questions from Members of the committee.

Councillor Chalmers asked for the meeting to be adjourned for five minutes to obtain advice regarding a potential declaration of interest. Councillor Chalmers decided in the circumstances there was no reason to declare an interest.

The meeting resumed and Councillor Devon asked Mr Beaton, agent for Argyll Properties, about the houses sitting on a platform. Mr Beaton responded that they would be on a plateau, and that he and Mr Gilmour walked the area and identified the 8 plots to the rear.

Councillor Devon then asked about the Pennyghael Development Company saying that the application under discussion included affordable housing. Ms Brown replied that Pennyghael development company does not have a problem with affordable housing.

Councillor Devon then asked Mr Cauldwell for the date of the letter from Scottish Natural Heritage to which he referred. Mr Cauldwell replied that the letter was dated 18 th July 2007, and that all remarks are in this letter. Mr Cauldwell added that he had telephoned Mr Campbell, the writer of the letter, was told that they were under instruction not to object. This was clarified in a letter dated 16/01/2008.

Councillor MacIntyre asked Mr Cauldwell if there was any subsequent letter to 16/01/2008 as respective members have in their report that there is no objection to this application.

Councillor MacKay asked Mr Beaton about discussions with the Head of Planning prior to lodging the application. Mr Beaton said there was the possibility of West Highland Housing Association becoming involved although the association are not clear of the number of houses being built – but they will probably be single storey.

Councillor MacKay asked Ms Brown if these houses would be sold as holiday homes. Ms Brown replied that 9 houses have been built since 1990 only two are residential homes.

Councillor MacKay asked Mr Beaton if the houses/holiday homes are going to be put on the open market. Mr MacLachlainn replied that 85% of the houses that have been built to date are occupied by locals.

Councillor MacKay referred to the many concerns Mr Cauldwell had with planning issues, and asked if Mr Cauldwell feels that our Head of Planning and our Planning Officer are not qualified and did he think they had got it wrong. Mr Cauldwell replied that after years of planning experience the number of houses specified, 10 or 14, would not be a good number.

Councillor MacKay asked Mr Beaton about the change of route to extract timber from Pennyghael. Mr Beaton replied if Pennyghael Estates have a legal and redeemable access from Mr MacLachlainn there would be no problem in using the existing route.

Ms Brown replied that the road is encroaching into the green belt site as it is.

Councillor MacDonald asked Mr Beaton if houses are built then sold would there be a planning restriction when sold. Mr Beaton said no, and Mr MacLachlainn added that they are still in discussion with West Highland Housing who would only go ahead once three houses were built.

Councillor Chalmers said Mr Cauldwell made frequent reference to a small village. Mr MacIntyre replied that Pennyghael is listed as a minor settlement. If Pennyghael was not in a PDA the planning office would be querying the numbers.

Councillor Chalmers asked Mr Chauvet about access. Mr Chauvet replied that the main problem is access, but he does not own the green site, and there is no existing right of access over the green site.

Councillor MacIntyre requested clarification of the procedure for the meeting with regard to Mull Community Council and Mr Ronnie Campbell as neither was listed among the objectors. Mr Campbell said he did not have a written statement or questions but said he was speaking as a member of Mull Community Council. The Chairman then said Ms Brown had a submission as a Mull Community Councillor representing the Pennyghael and Tiroran area, and also on her own behalf. The Chairman then ruled that the committee would accept that Mr Campbell as a Mull Community Councillor spoke on behalf of Pennyghael and Tiroran area and Ms Brown spoke on her own behalf.

Councillor MacIntyre then asked the Planning Officer about his proposed condition for timber extraction from Pennyghael Estate. Mr Heron said he would have no objection to the proposal, adding that a barrier could be put across the access and after 10 years it could be closed off.

Councillor MacCuish asked about right of access across field, and was advised that Argyll Properties have full title to the road.

Councillor MacDonald mentioned Infiltration and said timber extractors would also need to satisfy SEPA

Councillor MacIntyre asked the Planning Officer to clarify that in proposing this application he had advised the applicant to contact Environment Health and SEPA.

Councillor Mackay asked for clarification that Conditions 4 and 5 are identical so there should now be 15 conditions, although 13 and 14 are in twice.

Summing Up:

Mr MacIntyre, Planning Officer, said he would delete condition 4 as it is the same as no 5 and re-number the other conditions. There are contours, this is a small settlement; if it was not a PDA he would not be recommending any more than 5 houses, but as it is a PDA the recommended number stand; no open space to the back has been taken and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

Mr Beaton, Agent for the Applicant, said the site has a protected history. The Head of Planning became involved and came to the site prior to the applicant lodging his application, and confirmed that all statutory planning conditions had been met.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell had nothing more to add to his submission.

Ms Brown asked why the area was kept as a PDA when the community had identified it for a community centre.

Mr Cauldwell said he felt the planning submission was flawed but none the less accepted that if the Planning Officer said it is valid, it is valid. The density would be completely changed in Appendix A of the local plan. Mr MacIntyre rightly says that the area is a PDA, but PDA’s need to be satisfied. He said the planning report is fundamentally wrong as it doesn’t follow policy.

Mr. Chauvet said Mr Beaton spoke to the local authority but didn’t speak to the local community. The Community are not opposed to housing. He said the houses would not stand out when built due to the tree backdrop, but this is a natural backdrop and will be felled in due course. He added that the community were also lead to believe that there would not be houses built on that side of the road.

Determination:

The Chairman then called for any further questions from members – there being none, he read out the recommendations for approval, subject to the attached conditions and reasons from the planning department and asked if anyone was otherwise minded. There being nothing intimated, the Chairman proposed the approval, seconded by Councillor MacDonald, and with no amendment the proposal was carried unanimously, with the Chairman asking for a show of hands for confirmation of the decision. All six members responded with a show of hands in favour of the motion with the application being approved subject to the attached conditions and reasons.

Page 1 Minute Item 3

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 07/02093/OUT

1. This permission is granted under the provisions of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) () Order 1992 on the basis of an outline application for planning permission and that the further approval of Argyll and Bute Council or of the Scottish Government on appeal shall be required with respect to the undermentioned reserved matters before any development is commenced:

(a) the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed development; (b) the landscaping of the site of the proposed development; (c) details of the access arrangements; (d) details of the proposed water supply and drainage arrangements.

Reason: To comply with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. In the case of the reserved matters specified in (1) above, an application for approval of the reserved matters in terms of Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 must be made to Argyll and Bute Council no later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

3. That the development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission or within the expiration of 2 years from the final approval of all reserved matters, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Page 2

4. Any subsequent application(s) for approval of reserved matters relative to plots 1-8 hereby approved shall include dwellinghouse(s) that are sited and designed in accordance with the approved site layout plan (drawing number 0581 L(--)02, revision c) and with the indicative ‘typical elevations’ contained thereon. Any such application shall be accompanied by: i. a site layout plan, which accords with the layout hereby approved under drawing number 0581 L(--)02, revision c. This shall show the position of all proposed buildings, accesses, parking areas, garden areas, walls, fences and landscaping; ii. plans and elevations of the dwelling(s) showing their dimensions and the type and colour of all external materials. The dwelling(s) shall: (a) Be designed in accordance with the ‘typical elevations’ hereby approved; (b) Be finished principally in white wet dash render or natural stone or a mixture of both; (c) Have roof coverings of natural slate or good quality slate substitute; (d) Be no more than 1.5 storeys in height; (e) Incorporate windows with a strong vertical emphasis; (f) Have roof pitches of between 37 and 42 degrees; (g) Be predominantly rectangular in shape width traditional gable ends not exceeding 8 metres; iii. details of existing and finished ground levels, and finished floor levels in relation to a fixed datum which is shown on the site plan; iv. a detailed design statement, which takes into account all the matters listed above and any other material justification for the nature of housing development that is submitted at the reserved matters stage. Such a statement shall include, but is not exclusive to, the relationship and response between the proposed dwelling(s) and the surrounding environment, both built and natural. It shall clearly indicate how the development will respond to its setting and how the proposed dwellings will relate to one another within the scheme and within the wider context of Pennyghael. The statement should fully justify the design against the Council’s Sustainable Design Guidance and Scottish Executive advice contained in PAN 44: Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape; PAN 67: Housing Quality; and PAN 68: Design Statements.

Reason: The proposed development is of a scale and prominence which requires a high quality of design and layout and a consistent approach to design in accordance with the Council’s Sustainable Design Guidance and PANs 44, 67 and, 68.

Reason: The proposed development is of a scale and prominence which requires a high quality of design and layout and a consistent approach to design in accordance with the Council’s Sustainable Design Guidance and PANs 44, 67 and 68.

Page 3

5. Affordable housing shall be provided on the site at a minimum level of 25% (ie 3 units minimum), in accordance with the provisions of the Modified Finalised Draft Argyll and Bute Local Plan, PDA 6/45 designation. No more than three ‘non-affordable’ dwellinghouses shall be constructed on any of plots 1-8 until such time as either: (a) Part of the site (as labelled ‘Housing Association development’ on the approved site plan, drawing number 0581 L(--)02, revision c) has been transferred into the ownership of a Registered Social Landlord, and written evidence of that fact has been provided to the Council as Planning Authority; or (b) The applicant has undertaken in writing to provide the required affordable housing, which meets the definitions contained within the Council’s Development Plan Policy Guidance - Affordable Housing. An application for approval of reserved matters shall be submitted for this affordable housing development in accordance with condition 5 above. Thereafter, a minimum of one affordable unit shall be fully constructed in accordance with the approved details and made ready for occupation prior to the commencement of development on the fourth ‘non-affordable’ dwellinghouse on plots 1-8. A minimum of two affordable units shall be fully constructed in accordance with the approved details and made ready for occupation prior to the commencement of development on the sixth ‘non-affordable’ dwellinghouse on plots 1-8. A minimum of three affordable units shall be fully constructed in accordance with the approved details and made ready for occupation prior to the commencement of development on the eighth ‘non-affordable’ dwellinghouse on plots 1-8.

Reason: In order to ensure the provision of affordable housing within the site in accordance with the requirements of the Modified Finalised Draft Argyll and Bute Local Plan.

6. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, full details of a comprehensive scheme of structural landscaping for the entire site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. This shall include details of –

i) structural planting for the entire site; ii) location and design, including materials, of all walls, fences, hedges and gates, including the proposed natural stone wall adjacent to the access road; iii) surface treatment of all proposed access and hardstanding areas.

All the hard and soft structural landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, within six months of the first dwelling house being occupied or brought into use and shall be maintained for a minimum of ten years thereafter. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting season following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council, as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, in order to integrate the overall development with its surroundings and maintain the rural landscape character of the area.

Page 4

7. Any subsequent application(s) for the approval of reserved matters for any individual dwelling(s) within the site or for the affordable housing development within the site shall include details of a comprehensive scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and structural landscaping works within the plot(s), to include –

i) location and design, including materials, of all walls, fences, hedges and gates. ii) surface treatment of means of access and hardstanding areas.

All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Council as planning authority, within six months of the first dwelling house being occupied or brought into use and shall be maintained for a minimum of ten years thereafter. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting season following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council, as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, in order to integrate the dwellinghouse(s) with its/their surroundings and with the rest of the overall development and maintain the rural landscape character of the area.

8. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, sight visibility splays of 160m x 2.4m at the proposed new access to the site from the A849 public road shall be cleared of all obstructions over 1.05 metres in height, and these shall thereafter be maintained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of road safety, in order to ensure that the development is served by a safe means of vehicular access.

9. Prior to the commencement of development on site, the new vehicular access to the site and proposed adopted roadway shall be fully constructed in accordance with Roads Development Guidelines, in consultation with the Council’s Transportation and Property Department, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. The road shall be a minimum of 5.5m in width, with a 2m footway on the south-west side and 2m verge on the north-east side. Radii at the junction with the A849 shall be 7.5m, radii at the turning heads shall be 6m, and the roadway shall have a gradient of no more than 8%.

Reason: In order to ensure that provision is made for a service “road” to serve the development, commensurate with the scale of the overall development.

101. Prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of proposed private ways within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. Such details shall show private ways designed in accordance with the layout indicated on approved site plan, drawing number 0581 L(--)02, revision c, which shall be 3.5m in width and with inter-visible passing places. Thereafter, the private ways shall be fully formed in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed private ways to serve the development are provided, in the interests of road safety.

11. Any subsequent application(s) for the approval of reserved matters shall include car parking spaces within each plot(s) at a level commensurate with the size of dwelling(s) proposed, in accordance the Council’s Roads Guidelines. Those levels being; 2 spaces for a dwelling house of up to and including 3 bedrooms; 3 spaces for 4 bedrooms; 4 spaces for 5 bedrooms; and so on. The proposed on-site vehicular parking and turning areas shall be formed in accordance with the approved details and brought into use prior to the first occupation of the respective dwellinghouse(s).

Page 5

Reason: To enable vehicles to park clear of the access roads and private ways within the development in the interests of road safety by maintaining unimpeded vehicular access over those roads and ways.

12. Any subsequent application(s) for the approval of the reserved matters shall include full details of all external lighting to serve the development. The submitted details shall show the lights pointing downwards and shall indicate the position of all proposed external lights and their illumination levels (provided in lux), together with appropriate mitigation measures to prevent light spillage and glare beyond the site boundary. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority.

Reason: The application site is in an area defined by a rural character. Therefore in order to protect and enhance the visual character and integrity of the area, particularly during the hours of darkness, the submission of such details is necessary in order that the planning authority could consider such matters fully.

13. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within the site, the proposed foul drainage and surface water systems shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: In order to ensure that foul and surface water are disposed of in a safe and sustainable way, with minimal adverse impact on the water environment.

14. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within the site, the proposed private water supply shall be brought into use in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is served by a suitable water supply, in the interests of public health.

15. Any details pursuant to condition 6 above shall include measures for the provision of the retention and protection of scrub associated with the burn at the south-western edge of the site, drawn up in consultation with the Planning Authority and with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Reason: In order to provide cover for female otters who may be utilising the burn as a route to a natural holt beyond the proposed site.

16. Any details pursuant to condition 6 above shall include measures for the protection and preservation of the cave within the site, as identified in the submitted archaeological assessment. Such measures should ensure that the cave is preserved as it is and an area of 5m diameter centred on its entrance should be left undisturbed by the development. No excavation should take place within the cave or its entrance. The cave shall thereafter be protected in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: In order to secure adequate protection of this important natural feature and landmark within the site.

17. Any details pursuant to condition 1 above shall include the retention of the forest access road on the eastern side of the site and details of barriers to prevent its use by residential traffic.

Reason: To maintain the access route for timber lorries from the adjacent commercial forest.

Page 6

This page is intentionally left blank