01507 Roh Mobile Food Van Colintraive.Pdf

Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure Services

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______

Reference No: 16/01507/PP

Planning Hierarchy: Local

Applicant: Mr Ian Colville

Proposal: Change of Use of Land for the Siting of a Mobile Hot Food Takeaway Unit

Site Address: Lay-by, North West of Ferry Bank, Colintraive ______

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

 Change of use of land for the siting of a mobile hot food takeaway unit

(ii) Other specified operations

 None. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in this report. ______

Adjacent Land - Planning Permission (ref: 05/00965/DET) was granted on 16th June 2005 for the re-profiling of land; the installation of a septic tank; the formation of a random stone wall face; and ancillary works on land behind the footway approximately 5 metres to the south east of the current application site. ______(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Colglen Community Council, c/o Cathleen Russell (Convener), 2 Ferry Bank, Colintraive (letter dated 28th June 2016)

The Community Council has raised an objection to the proposal on the basis that this is a very important residential parking area where there is already a lack of parking and there is concern about the prospect of congestion on the A886 public road.

Area Roads Manager (reports dated 8th July and 18th July 2016)

The proposed development is in an existing lay-by to the North West of Ferry Bank, Colintraive on the A886 road. There is a 30mph speed restriction at this location. The lay-by is some 73 metres in length, being full width for approximately 52 metres. The width of the layby varies from 4.3 to 4.6 metres.

The location of the mobile hot food takeaway unit should be to one end of the layby, away from the Scottish Water installation at the rear of the footway, in order to ensure access as and when required by Scottish Water and their operatives.

The serving counter should face the footway and not the carriageway unless there are suitable barriers to minimise the potential of pedestrian / vehicle conflict. All waste and litter generated by the unit to be disposed of by the applicant.

Should the Roads Authority require access to the lay-by for maintenance and other essential works, the applicant must be able to vacate in a timeously manner.

With respect to the perceived parking issues, on any visits that have been made by the Roads Officer over the past few months, there has always been an occupancy rate within the lay-by of approximately 40%/60%. Feedback received from a commuter (Bute to Colintraive) who leaves a vehicle on the Colintraive side of the ferry crossing overnight tends to suggest that spaces are available most of the time.

Environmental Health Service (reports dated 8th July and 20th July 2016)

In response to a direct enquiry from the Planning Service in respect of specific minimum distances relating to the siting of a mobile food business from the access to a septic tank, the following advice is offered:

There is very little prescriptive guidance offered: Sewers for Scotland 3rd edition (published by Scottish Water in April 2015) quotes a minimum separation distance of 5 metres from a habitable dwelling for a Type 1 pumping station to minimise noise, odour and vibration. There are no similar criteria for septic tanks. BS 6297:1983 ‘Design and Installation of small sewage treatment works and cesspools’ advises a 15 metre minimum from a cesspool and 25 metres from a small sewage treatment works.

The proposed application is for a mobile hot food takeaway unit which does not require the same protection from potential bad neighbour in reverse afforded by the Scottish Water septic tank as does a permanent dwelling house; however, the following issues should be taken into consideration:

1. Maintenance of the septic tank – access will be required on a regular basis (or for occasional emergency situations) for the emptying and de-sludging of the septic tank. This will cause localised odours and there may be splashes, aerosols and drips of sewage from the pipework and equipment involved. In addition there needs to be vehicular access for the tanker. This could pose a risk of contamination to the food operation; 2. Odours from the septic tank – the tank (depending on design) may on occasion vent unpleasant odours;

3. Street trader licence requirement – the owner of the layby is Argyll and Bute Council Roads Department. The applicant may be refused street trader permission to trade adjacent to the septic tank due to objections from the Roads Department and Scottish Water requiring unlimited access to the tank. The views of these bodies should be sought.

Conclusion – whilst there is no objection in principle to the granting of this application, it is recommended that a safe-guarding condition is applied that a minimum distance of 5 metres should be maintained on either side of the septic tank access hatch to minimise the risk of odours and potential contamination to the proposed development.

Scottish Water (e-mail dated 25th July 2016)

The proposed hot food take-a-way van is located too close to Scottish Water’s existing asset. Not only would this be an issue for access to carry out operational inspections/cleaning/maintenance etc., it would also be a concern for potential odour problems while carrying out the cleaning of this asset.

If the van is to be located in the layby, Scottish Water’s preference would be for it to be located at the end of the layby towards Strachur as far away as possible from their asset. ______

(E) PUBLICITY:

Regulation 20 Advert (closing date 1st July 2016) ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

There are a total of thirteen objections to the application as detailed below:

Councillor objection: Councillor Alex McNaughton, Old Police House, Colintraive (e-mail dated 23rd June 2016)

Patricia Watt, Colintraive Hotel, Colintraive (e-mails dated 10th June 2016) Adrienne Macdonald, Faoilinn, Colintraive (letter dated 12th June 2016) Mary Sinclair, 5 Ferrybank, Colintraive (letter dated 13th June 2016) Ann Fargher, 18 Glenmore House, Colintraive (e-mail dated 15th June 2016) Robert Perry, Tigh Na Beag, Colintraive (e-mail dated 15th June 2016) Norma Perry, Tigh Na Beag, Colintraive (e-mail dated 15th June 2016) Margaret Malcolm, The Old Manse, Colintraive (e-mail dated 19th June 2016) Danielle Clark De Bisschop, 2 Ferrybank Cottages, Colintraive (e-mail dated 20th June 2016) Kenneth J Harrison, Churchfield, Colintraive (letter dated 20th June 2016) Eileen Harrison, Churchfield, Colintraive (letter dated 20th June 2016) Peter Luke, 6 Ferrybank Cottages, Colintraive (e-mail dated 23rd June 2016) Jan Mackenzie, The Beeches, Colintraive (letter dated 24th June 2016)

The points raised can be summarised as follows:

i. Colintraive already has a food provider. Comment: The issue of over-provision of a certain type of facility does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case.

ii. The lay-by was created to provide parking for the residents of Ferry Bank and their visitors, and to ease the flow of traffic to and from the ferry terminal. The proposed unit and its towing vehicle would diminish the original purpose of this facility. There is also the potential for accidents to occur if the flow of traffic is hindered by cars being parked outside the dwellings at Ferry Bank as their drivers cannot gain access to the lay-by.

Comment: This issue is addressed in the Assessment section contained within Appendix A below.

iii. Concern is expressed that the pervading smell of cooked food would adversely impact on the area and, in particular, the nearby houses.

Comment: This issue is addressed in the Assessment section contained within Appendix A below.

iv. Concern is expressed that the large seagull colony inhabiting the nearby Burnt Islands would be attracted by the smell and food, which would cause unwanted noise and mess.

Comment: This particular issue does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case.

v. Concern is expressed that litter wrongly discarded by patrons would be very unsightly and could cause vermin.

Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case and would more appropriately be addressed through other legislation. ______

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

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

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

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc:

(v) Supporting Statements

Supporting Statements have been submitted by Marshall Associates (undated and dated 2nd August 2016), which can be summarised as follows:

. The applicant has recently been made redundant after 25 years working in catering, as a fully qualified chef in the offshore oil industry. During those years, he was in charge of catering on vessels with crews of up to 400 and high standards of safety and food hygiene were required. He now plans to pursue his career in catering by operating a hot food sales outlet as a self-employed person. He has identified an opportunity to provide a facility in the vicinity of the ferry terminal at Colintraive;

. His intention is to place a food trailer at the roadside near to the existing terminal, from which hot and cold food would be served. The menu is likely to include teas, coffees, hot and cold drinks, toasties, hot rolls and salads. Locally-sourced products, especially from Argyll and Bute, would be used whenever possible;

. Litter would be managed by providing refuse containers and signage. Any litter remaining at the end of each trading day would be removed. A supply of fresh water, the collection of wastewater and the use of bottled gas will be contained within the food trailer;

. The applicant considers that the hot food outlet he is proposing to operate will be in a different market from the local hotel. His intention is to provide ‘passing trade’ with food to be taken away. In any case, whether or not the objectors consider the applicant’s proposal to be offering choice and competition, it is not for the Planning Department to seek to prevent the opening of other food outlets for that reason;

. The lay-by seems to have been provided by Argyll and Bute Council for the use of the general public and there does not appear to be any intention to define or restrict its use. There are no notices in place to advise of any such intentions;

. The lay-by accommodates a drainage facility of some sort (it may be a septic tank) but it has not been identified as a hazard in the past and there is no signage directing the public to ‘keep clear’ or ‘beware of risk to health’. ______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 obligation required: No ______

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ______

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application

(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.

‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015)

LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 11—Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure

‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – Supplementary Guidance’ (2016)

SG LDP ENV 12 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas SG LDP ACE 1 – Area Capacity Evaluation SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP BUS 2 – Business and Industry Proposals in the Countryside Development Management Zones SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP BAD 2 – Bad Neighbour Development in Reverse SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013.

 Scottish Planning Policy (2014)  Consultee Responses  Third Party Representations ______

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ______

(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ______

(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: Yes

The Council is the landowner. ______

(O) Requirement for a hearing: No

In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, the Council will consider how up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. In addition, consideration will also be given to the degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected set against the relative number of representations and their provenance.

In this particular instance, whilst there have not been an overwhelming number of people making comment, it should be recognised that one of the Local Councillors and the Colglen Community Council have expressed their concerns regarding the proposal. Given that this Department is recommending refusal of the application (which is in line with the objectors’ position) and the issues pertaining to the proposal are not particularly complex, it is not considered in this instance that the undertaking of a discretionary hearing would add significant value to the determination of this application for Planning Permission. ______

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

The proposal seeks the change of use of part of an existing lay-by within Colintraive for the siting of a mobile hot food takeaway unit. From a settlement strategy perspective, the site is within the ‘countryside’ zone where Development Plan policies support new development in specific circumstances. Given the scale and temporary nature of the unit and its proposed location relative to the village, it is considered that the principle of this type of operation could be supported.

Whilst significant concerns have been raised by the community regarding the position of the proposed unit within the lay-by and its possible effect upon the traffic flow within the village, the Roads Department have concluded that this issue would not warrant a recommendation of refusal.

The principal issue relates to the proximity of the proposed unit to existing Scottish Water wastewater infrastructure. The Roads Department, the Environmental Health Service and Scottish Water itself have all raised concerns that the presence of the unit would obstruct access for operational inspections/cleaning/maintenance etc. of the septic tank and that there could be a risk of contamination to the food operation, particularly during the cleaning and de-sludging of the tank.

Policy LDP 9 of the Local Development Plan advocates recognising the context of new development and adapting proposals accordingly. More specifically, Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 2 seeks to avoid prejudicing the operational integrity of safeguarded land use and operations by introducing development in close proximity to existing ‘bad neighbour’-type development where there is a specific incompatibility.

In the particular circumstances of this case, it is considered that the juxtaposition of the proposed unit and the existing septic tank would result in two incompatible developments within close proximity of one another contrary to Development Plan policy. ______

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______

(R) Reason why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be refused

Policy LDP 9 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 relates to the setting, layout and design of a proposed development. It advocates that development should be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it would be located and also that layouts should be adapted, as appropriate, to take into account the location or sensitivity of the area.

Supplementary Guidance SG LDP BAD 2 of the Local Development Plan seeks to avoid prejudicing the operational integrity of safeguarded land use and operations by introducing development in close proximity to existing ‘bad neighbour’-type development where there is a specific incompatibility.

The proposed mobile hot food takeaway unit is proposed to be positioned approximately 5 metres to the North West of the existing Scottish Water septic tank which is raised some 500 millimetres above ground level. Given this relatively close proximity, the proposed position of the unit would represent an obstruction to vehicles in the course of carrying out operational inspections/cleaning/maintenance etc. of the septic tank.

Furthermore, particularly during the emptying and de-sludging of the septic tank, localised odours may be caused and there may be splashes, aerosols and drips of sewage from the pipework and equipment involved which could pose a risk of contamination to the food operation being carried out at the unit.

On the basis of the foregoing, there would be an incompatibility between the juxtaposition of the existing wastewater infrastructure and the proposed food unit contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 2 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. ______

(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan

Not applicable. ______

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

Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 2nd September 2016

Reviewing Officer: David Love Date: 2nd September 2016

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning & Regulatory Services REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO: 16/01507/PP

1. Policy LDP 9 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 relates to the setting, layout and design of a proposed development. It advocates that development should be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it would be located and also that layouts should be adapted, as appropriate, to take into account the location or sensitivity of the area.

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY

Whilst the lay-by within which the mobile unit is proposed to be located is within the 30 m.p.h. limit in Colintraive (one of the area’s Villages and Minor Settlements), the site is actually within the ‘Countryside’ zone as designated under the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

Under Policy LDP DM 1 of the Local Development Plan, development within the ‘Countryside’ zone is supported in certain circumstances i.e. it should be small-scale and should represent infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of existing buildings. If the proposal does not conform to the specified criteria, support depends upon there being an exceptional circumstance and accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE).

In this particular case, it is considered that, whilst the proposed mobile unit would be of a small scale, it would not fall within the definitions of infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of existing buildings. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, in the majority of situations, an exceptional case would require being justified and an ACE undertaken. However, Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP ACE 1 specifically removes the necessity for an ACE in certain limited circumstances, including temporary buildings or proposals. The siting of a mobile hot food takeaway unit would fall within this exemption.

There are particular circumstances pertaining to this case as follows:

 the small scale and temporary nature of the unit;

 the position of the site directly adjacent to an existing car park which, in terms of its location and purpose, is not in ‘open countryside’ but is rather more associated with the village of Colintraive;

 the logicality of providing this type of operation directly adjacent to a parking area.

It is considered that these circumstances allow the proposal to be viewed favourably from a settlement strategy perspective.

In view of this, it is considered that the principle of the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1 and LDP DM 1 and Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP ACE 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

B. LOCATION, NATURE AND DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal seeks the change of use of part of the lay-by to the north west of the dwellings known as Ferry Bank in Colintraive. The backdrop to the lay-by is agricultural land and the site is clearly visible from short, medium and long distance views. This part of Colintraive is within the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area. The proposed unit would be a kiosk manufactured from moulded fibreglass with a sky blue colour. The serving hatches would face onto the existing pavement. Whilst the site is part of a landscape that is recognised as having national significance, the lay-by is a relatively small component of the natural environment. The proposed mobile unit would have a similar appearance and scale to a small touring caravan or light van and, in this context, it would have no greater visual impact than the existing vehicles which utilise the lay-by.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the presence of a mobile hot food takeaway unit in this particular location would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the appearance of the Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area. However, if Members were minded to approve the application, there would be justification for the attaching of conditions requiring the use of a more appropriate and recessive colour than sky blue and the limiting of the length of the permission to allow a re-evaluation of the impact of the unit within a reasonable time period.

On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies LDP 3 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 12 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

C. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS IMPACT

Policy LDP 5 of the Local Development Plan 2015 seeks to ensure that the Council will take into full account the economic benefits of any proposed development. Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BUS 2 relates to business proposals within the Countryside Development Management Zones and seeks to support development subject to a number of criteria, including scale, location, visual impact, parking, traffic circulation, vehicular access and servicing, and pedestrian access.

The subject proposal will have a relatively small and specific economic benefit (primarily to the operator) but it may provide some level of new employment. In addition, the type of mobile hot food takeaway facility would be of a sort that has not been a feature of Colintraive and would potentially provide a service to locals and visitors. Its position at the lay-by would allow motorists to stop directly adjacent to it whilst its location within walking distance of the ferry terminal would allow members of the public to use the unit whilst their vehicles were congregating in advance of embarking on to the ferry.

On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy LDP 5 and Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BUS 2 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

D. ROAD NETWORK, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT MATTERS

As Members will note from Section (F) above, the main objection to the proposal relates to the provision of the unit within the lay-by and the accompanying reduction in the number of parking spaces. Concern is expressed that this could result in cars being parked on the highway which could interrupt the flow of traffic to and from the ferry terminal.

It is understood that the lay-by is a public space for the parking of vehicles and that there are no restrictions on the period of time a vehicle can be parked or the type of vehicle. The Roads Department are aware of the level of opposition to the proposal on parking grounds and have taken them into account. Their view is that this is not an issue that would warrant refusal of the application.

On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy LDP 11 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. E. POTENTIAL BAD NEIGHBOUR DEVELOPMENT

Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 defines those types of development that would constitute a ‘bad neighbour’. The sale of hot food would be one such type of development and, therefore, the current proposal should be assessed against Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 1 of the Local Development Plan 2015.

This policy seeks to support ‘bad neighbour’ developments where they would conform to certain criteria, including their effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents; the incorporation of appropriate measures to reduce the impact on amenity; the absence of any significant transport, amenity or public service provision objections; and the compliance with technical standards in terms of parking, traffic circulation, vehicular access and servicing, and pedestrian access.

In this particular case, the main issue relates to the potential for noise and odours associated with the preparation and service of the hot food. The nearest residential property is located approximately 31 metres to the south east of the proposed unit and the Environmental Health Service has expressed no concerns that residential amenity would be compromised.

On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to accord with Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

F. PROXIMITY TO EXISTING SCOTTISH WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

In 2005, Scottish Water was carrying out works to improve the wastewater system in Colintraive. The site chosen for the septic tank that was to serve the northern part of the village was adjacent to the lay-by within which the proposed unit is to be located. Due to technical difficulties at the time, the tank could not be placed fully underground so it was installed in such a way that its finished height was approximately 500 mm above the ground level. The tank was enclosed behind a wall facing with stone chippings being placed on top. Planning Permission (ref: 05/00965/DET) was granted for the installation of the tank on 16th June 2005.

The proposed mobile hot food takeaway unit is proposed to be positioned approximately 5 metres to the North West of the existing septic tank. There are two main issues associated with this proposed positioning in relatively close proximity to Scottish Water’s asset, as follows:

. Scottish Water and the Council’s Roads Department have expressed concern that this would be an issue for access to carry out operational inspections/cleaning/maintenance etc. of the septic tank;

. The Environmental Health Service and Scottish Water have expressed concern that, particularly during the emptying and de-sludging of the septic tank, localised odours may be caused and there may be splashes, aerosols and drips of sewage from the pipework and equipment involved which could pose a risk of contamination to the food operation.

Having regard to these concerns, both Scottish Water and the Roads Department have recommended that the van be re-located within the layby with the former’s preference for it to be located at the end of the layby towards Strachur as far away as possible from their asset. Policy LDP 9 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 relates to the setting, layout and design of a proposed development. It advocates that development should be sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it would be located and also that layouts should be adapted, as appropriate, to take into account the location or sensitivity of the area.

Given the concerns expressed by Scottish Water, the Council’s Roads Department and the Council’s Environmental Health Service, it is considered that the juxtaposition of the proposed food unit and the existing septic tank would represent precisely the type of situation that Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 2 are seeking to avoid.

The agent for the application has been informed of the concerns of the various bodies and that, in its present arrangement, the application would be recommended for refusal. It has been suggested that the withdrawal of the current scheme and the submission of a revised application for the unit to be located within the northern end of the lay-by would be likely to address these specific concerns, subject to there being no other new significant issues being raised. Having discussed this option with his client, the agent has asked that the application be determined in its current form.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal does not accord with the provisions of Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP BAD 2 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.