Public Document Pack Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid
Corporate and Legal Services Director: Nigel Stewart
Dalriada House, Lochnell Street, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8ST Tel: 01546 602177 Fax: 01546 604530
20 December 2002
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE will be held in the THE TOWN HALL, CAMPBELTOWN on WEDNESDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2002 at 09.30 AM, which you are requested to attend.
Nigel Stewart Director of Corporate and Legal Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 4 SEPTEMBER 2002 (PAGES 1 - 16)
4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS (PAGES 17 - 78)
6. DELEGATED DECISIONS (PAGES 79 - 86)
CORPORATE AND LEGAL SERVICES
7. CHAIRMANS REPORT ON JOINT MEETING WITH MOYLE COUNCIL - VERBAL
8. MINUTES OF DALINTOBER/MILLKNOWE AREA DEVELOPMENT GROUP DATED 23 AUGUST 2002 (PAGES 87 - 94)
9. MINUTES OF KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP DATED 26 AUGUST 2002 (PAGES 95 - 100)
10. MINUTES OF MID ARGYLL PARTNERSHIP DATED 3 SEPTEMBER 2002 (PAGES 101 - 108)
11. MID ARGYLL GAELIC PARTNERSHIP (PAGES 109 - 118)
EDUCATION/HOUSING AND SOCIAL WORK
12. GRANTS (PAGES 119 - 122)
13. DALINTOBER MILLKNOWE SIP - VERBAL UPDATE
EXEMPT SECTION The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The appropriate paragraphs are:-
E1 Information which if disclosed to the public would reveal that the Paragraph 13 authority proposes: (a) To give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) To make an order or direction under any enactment
E2 Any terms proposed to be or to be proposed by the authority in the Paragraph 9 course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services.
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
E2 14. JOINT WORKING - COLONSAY, JURA AND GIGHA (PAGES 123 - 130)
CORPORATE AND LEGAL SERVICES
E2 15. GARAGE SITE, TAYVALLICH (PAGES 131 - 134)
E2 16. PROPOSED PUMPING STATION, FURNACE (PAGES 135 - 138)
MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE
Councillor Alasdair Blair Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay (Vice-chairman) Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Dugie MacKinnon Councillor Donald MacMillan (Chairman)Councillor Alastair McKinlay Councillor Bruce Robertson
Contact: Deirdre Forsyth
Page 1 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES of MEETING of MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY on WEDNESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2002
Present: Councillor Donnie MacMillan (Chair)
Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Dugie McKinnon Councillor Alastair McKinlay Councillor Bruce Robertson
Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Planning Officer Ian Fawcett, Area Amenity Services Manager Felicity Kelly, Community Education Donnie McLeod, Area Manager, Transportation & Property Services Roddy McDowell, Head of Lifelong Learning & Capital Resource Jolan Gergely, Area Housing Manager Angus Smith, Area Social Work Manager Mike Davis, Research Librarian Bruce Campbell, Senior Environmental Health Officer Duncan Aitken, Scottish Water Keith Robinson , Scottish Water Stewart Clark, Transportation and Property Services Sandy McAuslan, Corporate and Legal Services Alastair Gow, Director of Transportation and Property Services John Downie, Development and Environment Services
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Findlay, Currie, Blair and Kelly.
2. MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF 7, 14 AND 19 AUGUST 2002
The Committee agreed the minutes of their meetings of 7, 14 and 19 August 2002 as a correct record.
3. UPDATE BY SCOTTISH WATER, SEPA AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
Keith Robinson, construction engineer for Coastal communities and Duncan Aitken local public services officer, both with Scottish Water, described the works which have been carried out at the new Campbeltown sewage scheme. They are satisfied that the system is now working as designed. Bruce Campbell confirmed that weekly updates are now received from Scottish Water and their response to any new issues is immediate.
Decision
Public Protection will continue to give the Area Committee regular reports on the Campbeltown scheme.
Page 2
4. PRESENTATION ON CLOCK LODGE, LOCHGILPHEAD
Michael Davis, Chair of Argyll and Bute Building Preservation Trust (BPT), gave a presentation on the role of BPT’s throughout Scotland and then went on to describe the proposals for converting the Clock Lodge into an Archive and History Centre. A brief report on the capital implications of the project was circulated.
Decision
The Committee gave their full support to the project and agreed to recommend a £150,000 contribution to the project from the Council’s capital budget spread over the years 2003/2004 and 2004/2005.
(Reference – Report by Area Corporate Services Manager dated 4 September 2002)
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
5. Listing of Tarbert Harbour
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 confers powers on the Scottish ministers, acting through Historic Scotland, to list buildings and structures considered to be of special architectural or historic interest, taking into account the value of individual buildings, their contribution to the value of groups of buildings, and the desirability of preserving fixtures or curtilage structures.
Where such buildings or structures are identified for prospective listing, Historic Scotland are required to consult those persons with an interest in the buildings. In this case the Council is being consulted as Planning Authority in respect of the listing of Tarbert Harbour and related structures.
Decision
That no objection be raised to the listing of Tarbert Harbour and related structures and that Historic Scotland be notified accordingly.
(Reference – Report by Director of Development and Environment Services dated 4 September 2002)
6. Delegated Decisions
The Committee noted the decisions issued by the Director of Development and Environment Services dated 15 and 16 August 2002.
Page 3
HOUSING AND SOCIAL WORK SERVICES
7. Review of Home Care Services
The report takes forward issues identified by the former Housing and Social Work Committee, in November 2000, regarding the future shape of the home care service provided by the Council, and makes recommendations in respect thereof. A briefing note was circulated to the Committee.
Decision
Members noted that progress reports will be brought forward on a regular basis to the Area Committee.
(Reference – Report by Director of Housing and Social Work Services dated 4 September 2002)
EDUCATION
8. Education Development Grants
A report was submitted by Director of Education dated 4 September 2002 describing an application which had been received. The sum remaining for distribution amounted to £2,513.50.
Decision
The following grant was agreed on the normal terms and conditions.
ORGANISATION PROJECT GRANT COST Templar Arts and Leisure £9794.56 £350 Centre
TOTAL £9794.56 £350
(Reference – Report by Director of Education dated 4 September 2002)
Page 4
CORPORATE AND LEGAL SERVICES
9. Area Plan and Area Budget
The Committee discussed the Area Plan which was updated as shown below and is attached.
Decision
1. Campbeltown Community Facility It was agreed to ask the Director of Finance to confirm the total sum allocated from the Council’s capital budget for this project.
2. South Kintyre Community Schools Project It was agreed that the four Kintyre Councillors should decide which of them would represent the Committee at the meetings of Community Schools Projects.
3. Irish Ferry It was noted that a joint meeting with Moyle Council would take place on 18 September 2002.
4. Port Ellen and Islay Hotel It was agreed that a group should be set up to push for a solution to the Islay Hotel. The group will consist of Councillors MacMillan, Findlay, Currie, Hay and McKinnon. Appropriate officials will be Malcolm McFadyen, Gary Wilson, Richard Kerr, Kevin Williams and Deirdre Forsyth with others being co-opted as necessary.
5. Meeting with BEAR It was agreed that the meeting with BEAR should be held as quickly as possible with all members of the Area Committee being invited to the meeting.
6. Recycling Issues It was agreed that a letter should be sent to the Scottish Executive about their decision not to support proposals by Campbeltown Wastewatchers to recycle plastics on the grounds that the area is too remote.
The Area Budget was also discussed and it was noted that all sums allocated should be spent before March 2003, with the exception of the £2,000 for the Fernoch/Achnabreck footpath which is not technically feasible. A copy of the area budget is attached.
Decision
It was agreed to allocate the £2,000 capital sum previously allocated to Fernoch/Achnabreck to improvements to the Front Green, Lochgilphead as an addition to the existing capital budget for play area upgrades.
Page 5
10. Planning Appeal
The Planning Appeal by Robert Durward in respect of a condition relating to planning permission for the erection of a dwelling house at land North of W B Leitch and Sons, Sailmakers, Garval Road, Tarbert has now been determined. The Reporter to the Scottish Executive has decided to allow the Appeal.
Decision
Members noted the decision.
(Reference – Report by Head of Legal Services dated 4 September 2002)
The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50 A (4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 9 and 13 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
11. Shop Premises, Tarbert
The Committee were updated on the position regarding empty shop premises in Tarbert following a further marketing campaign in respect of the vacant shop premises at Argyll House, Harbour Street, Tarbert.
Decision
The Members agreed to authorise the Director of Corporate and Legal Services to continue in its efforts to identify a suitable tenant for the premises.
(Reference – Report by Director of Corporate and Legal Services dated 14 August 2002)
12. Surplus Properties
The report contained details of property assets for the Mid Argyll Kintyre and Islay area.
Decision
The Committee agreed to the inclusion in the Council’s Surplus Property Account of the property assets described in the report and noted the estimated capital receipts envisaged together with the programme for disposal.
(Reference – Report by Director of Corporate and Legal Services dated 4 September 2002)
Page 6
13. Workshop at Manse Brae, Lochgilphead
A report regarding a lease of a workshop at Manse Brae, Lochgilphead was circulated.
Decision
The Committee agreed to authorise the Director of Corporate and Legal Services to grant a new ten year lease of the premises on the terms and conditions contained in the report.
(Reference – Report by Director of Corporate and legal Services dated 14 August 2002)
14. Enforcement
A report about non compliance of conditions attached to Planning Permission 97/00219/NID was discussed.
Decision
It was agreed to take no enforcement action on the basis of the conditions contained within the report being complied with.
(Reference – Report by Director of Development and Environment Services date 8 August 2002)
15. VISIT TO WHITEGATES DEVELOPMENT
An interesting visit to the Fyne Homes Development at Whitegates took place, including the Biomass project by Torren Energy. This will be the first housing development in the United Kingdom which uses Biomass energy to heat houses the fuel being local woodchips from forest residues around Lochgilphead.
Page 7
MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY
Area Strategy and Action Plan
Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Area Committee have agreed 2 geographical priority areas and 5 partnership priorities. Many of these involve Community Planning Partners.
The Committee have agreed that in regard to the geographical areas, service departments should target and prioritise these areas for any revenue funding which is not specifically allocated to service functions.
They further agreed that in regard to the 5 partnership areas, the first priority is to arrange meetings with other identified local partners to discuss action on each of these points.
The 2 geographical priority areas are
1. Campbeltown and South Kintyre
and
2. Islands of Islay, Jura, Colonsay and Gigha.
The specific priorities for these 2 areas are on Appendix (1) and Appendix (2). These include ongoing projects which have already been allocated funding.
Appendix (3) details partnership projects.
The Committee have agreed to review these priorities in September 2002.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\AreaPlan00.doc 04September2002 Page 8
Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Action Plan Geographical Priority Campbeltown and South Kintyre
Projects When By Cost Partners Action whom * BNSF – Campbeltown 2002/2005 SW/ED £600,000 over 3 yrs Scottish Executive Project manager being appointed * Community Facility – Campbeltown 2005 DES £2 million in Councils budget To be sought Planning Application £65 million total cost lodged * Community Schools Initiative 2001/2004 ED £600,000 over 3 yrs Scottish Executive Underway * South Kintyre Community Learning Plan 2001/2004 Com Ed £80,000 over 3 years S E/ABC/Local Rolling out now at Communities / Careers The Laggan/and Partnership Peninver * Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry 2003 TAPS £1 million Scottish Executive Meeting in (expected subsidy) Northern Ireland September Executive Scotland Office
* Healthy Living Centre, Kintyre 2002/2007 ED/HSW £808,000 ABC/Health Underway Page 9 Trusts/Voluntary organisations * S.I.P. 2002/2004 HSW £200,000 ABC/Vol.Org/Health/ Report to be made AIE to Area Committee 1. Campbeltown Town Centre Traffic 2003/2004 TAPS £300,000 ABC Public consultation to Management public be arranged consultation Meeting to be held 2002/2003 with local Member 2. Campbeltown Museum – 2004/2006 DES £2 million ABC/Historic Kevin Williams to Burnet Project – future exhibition space Scotland/HLF/other advise partners/CAKE 3. Town Centre Improvements 2002/2005 AIE/DES £4 million or less Historic Scotland Kevin Williams to depending on level of work undertaken HLF/ ABC/AIE advise 4. Campbeltown Airshow June 2003 CAKE/ £56,000 AIE/Sponsors/ABC A Hay to discuss (£20,000 from ABC) Campbeltown with AIE KIWG Common Good Fund 5. Fish Farm, Machrihanish To be agreed DES To be ascertained Private owner Kevin Williams to AIE/ABC advise of feasibility 6. Improvements to Tayinloan ferry Longer term TAPS To be ascertained ABC/Scottish Investigate costs of terminal Executive/Calmac feasibility study * * funded projects
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\AreaPlan00.doc 04September2002
Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Action Plan Geographical Priority Islay, Jura, Colonsay & Gigha
Project When By whom Costs Partners Action
* BNSF – part of Atlantic Isles 2002 SW £600,000 over 3 yrs Scottish Executive Local Outcome ABC Agreement with Scottish Executive Angus Smith to update * 3 Islands Partnership, Islay, Jura and 2001/2002 CLS/IT £700,000 Scottish Executive All service points Colonsay ABC, AIE functioning Health Board * Jura Ferry – Islay/Jura 2001/2003 ABC £350,000 ABC Regular updates to
Existing ferry improvements area committees Page 10
* Port Askaig redevelopment 2002/2004 TPS £5 million EU/Scot Exec/ABC Negotiating with land owners * Gigha Community Heritage Trust 2002 CLS £20,000 ABC Concluded but Start Up Costs ongoing support to community *. Colonsay Crofting Scheme 2002/2005 Crofters £6,000 CC/ABC/AIE/ Other Funding agreed Commissi partners on * Islay Gaelic Centre 2002/03 Trust £2 million Trust/AIE/HIE Now open 1. Islay Hotel, Port Ellen 2002 AIE/DES To be ascertained AIE/Private Partners Being monitored by ABC/Com.Scotland Building Control. Suggest Project Development Group for Port Ellen 2. Bruichladdich Pier Longer term TAPS £1.6 million ABC/Shell Report to SPC Monitoring condition 3. Jura Ferry – new ferry Medium term TAPS £2.5 million ABC/Scottish Executive Bid submitted to Scottish Executive 4. Jura Ferry – mainland route Longer term ABC/? £3 million Various To be investigated by Scottish Executive 5. Rhinns Community Sports Project – upgrade 2002/03 DES £250,000 Local Group/ABC Planning football pitch, pavilion playground/campsite HIE/AIE/ABC application being Sports Sc prepared * Previously funded projects F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\AreaPlan00.doc 04September2002
Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Partnership Projects – Action Plan
Project When By Partners Action whom Ardrishaig Improvements 2002/2005 DES/ BWB/AIE/ABC E. Wilson – funding being sought - including skateboard park TAPS Create Sports Strategy for Argyll and 2001/2004 DES/Cor ABC/Sports Scotland W Young to update committee Bute to enable a focus on sports porate AIE facilities for Mid Argyll Policy Private funding (Mid Argyll Sports Trust)
Tourism – improve signage and scrub 2002 DES/ AILLST D McLeod / P Convery clearance TAPS Visit Scotland ABC/AIE/ - Tourist Signage upgrading ongoing Private owners
Page 11 Housing Plan for Inveraray 2002/2003 H&SW ABC/ Com Scotland/ M McFadyen discussing with CS Historic Scotland Jolan Gergely to obtain information re improvements to Historic Buildings Ardfern Development Control 2002 DES ABC/private land owners R Kerr Discussions still being held with landowner * Recycling and waste minimisation 2002/2005 and DES Shanks (A&B ltd)/ ABC/GRAB/Rejig/ Euro funding allocated ongoing Campbeltown Waste Projects agreed Watchers/Greenlight/ IDEAS group
Tourist Information Centre/ 2003/04 CLS ABC/AILLST/AIE Architects have been instructed re feasibility Marriage Room, Inveraray study
Trunk Roads – joint discussions Ongoing TAPS BEAR/SC.EXECUTIVE Meeting to be arranged with local members
* Tarbert Scottish Series May 2002 DES Local Group/Main Sponsor/AIE/ABC Funding shortfall covered
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\AreaPlan00.doc 04September2002
Page 12
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\AreaPlan00.doc 04September2002 MID ARGYLL, KNITYRE AND ISLAY AREA BUDGET
REVENUE
Project £ Ward Area Service Other Grant Monitoring Priority Funding Sept 2002 Jan 2002 Leaverage Campbeltown Airshow £15,000 1,2,3 K DES √ £15,000 √
Irish Ferry Marketing – to CAKE TBA 1,2,3 K DES √ £2,000 √
Library Services £8,250 ALL DES £8,250 √
South Argyll Rural Initiative £1,000 1,2,3 K DES √ £1,000 √ Page 13
Lochgilphead Primary School £2,000 6 ED √ £2,000 √ Garden Patchan Cemetery £2,000 4 K DES £2,000 Enquiries with Historic Scotland Tarbert Football Pitch £3,500 4 K DES/ED £3,500 √
Stewarton Village Playscheme £2,000 1 K DES/HSW £2,000 √
Dalintober/Millknowe Area £750 2 K CLS √ £750 √ Development Group
Area Priority * K = Kintyre I = Islands P = Partnership
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\RevenueBudget00.doc 04September2002 MID ARGYLL, KNITYRE AND ISLAY AREA BUDGET
REVENUE
Project £ Ward Area Service Other Grant Monitoring Priority Funding Sept 2002 Jan 2002 Leaverage Inveraray Shinty Club £10,000 7 DES √ £5,000 √
Lochgilphead Golf Club £10,000 6 DES √ £4,000 √
Campbeltown Putting Green £2,000 1 K DES £2,000 √ Page 14
Kildalton Road £4,000 9 I TAPS £4,000 √
ReJig Recycling Group £3,380 8,9 I TAPS √ £3,380 √
Lochgilphead Front Green £2,000 6 DES £2,000 √
Roads Projects DES £43,120 √ programmed
Area Priority * K = Kintyre I = Islands P = Partnership
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\RevenueBudget00.doc 04September2002 MID ARGYLL, KNITYRE AND ISLAY AREA BUDGET
CAPITAL
Project £ Ward Area Priority Service Other Grant Monitoring Funding Sept 2002 Jan 2002 Leaverage Inveraray Marriage Room £2,020 7 P DES/CLS √ £2,020 √ timescale Colonsay Croft Entrant £12,000 8 I DES √ £6,000 Check with Scheme Ian Downie/AIE Playing Fields Bowmore £21,000 9 I DES/ED √ £5,000 √ Page 15 Playing Fields Port Charlotte £20,000 8 I DES √ £10,000 √
Kilkerran Cemetery £6,500 1 K DES £6,500 √
Mid Argyll Sports Trust £5,000 5,6,7 P DES √ £5,000 √
Islay Development Company £10,000 9 I DES √ £10,000 √
Tarbert Scottish Series £7,612 4 K DES √ £7,612 √
High Bank Park Footpath £2,000 6 TAPS £2,000 Programmed
Area Priority * K = Kintyre I = Islands P = Partnership D = Departmental Priority
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\CapitalBudget00.doc 04September2002
MID ARGYLL, KNITYRE AND ISLAY AREA BUDGET
CAPITAL
Project £ Ward Area Priority Service Other Grant Monitoring Funding Sept 2002 Jan 2003 Leaverage Footpath to Port Ellen £1,000 9 I TAPS/ £1,000 Being checked – Primary School HSW not feasible without further funding Kilmartin footpath £4,000 7 TAPS £4,000 √ Page 16
Play area upgrades £2,000 6 K DES £2,000 Front Green/Corran, Lochgilphead
Bike & Skateboard Park, £10,000 2 K DES/ED √ £5,000 Site being Campbeltown investigated
Junior Changing Facility £20,000 1,2,3 K DES/ED √ £10,000 Timescale being Campbeltown investigated
Roads Projects £75,000 All TAPS £23,868 Programmed October/November
Area Priority * K = Kintyre I = Islands P = Partnership D = Departmental Priority
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\0\1\AI00005102\CapitalBudget00.doc 04September2002 Page 17 Agenda Item 5
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING ON 2 OCTOBER 2002
1. 02/01818/DET Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd. Detailed. Alteration and extension of retail store and reconfiguration of living accommodation above, Lochview, Barmore Road, Tarbert.
Recommendation
That planning permission be refused on highway safety grounds, in accordance with the views of the Trunk Roads Authority, and for the reason contained in the report by Director of Development and Environment Services dated 11 September 2002.
2. 02/01293/OUT Mr & Mrs J Brolly. Outline. Erection of dwelling, Plot 3, Torran Farm, Ford.
Recommendation
That the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy.
3. 02/01339/OUT Mr & Mrs J Brolly. Outline. Erection of dwelling, Plot 2, Torran Farm, Ford.
Recommendation
That the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy.
4. 02/01370/OUT Mr & Mrs J Brolly. Outline. Erection of dwelling, Plot 4, Torran Farm, Ford.
Recommendation
That the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy.
5. 02/01452/DET Mr P Brown. Detailed. Erection of a dwelling house, Land referred to as The Weaver’s House, Kilmory Knapp, Knapdale.
Recommendation
That the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy in respect of the protection of the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
6. 02/01528/COU Hamish Dunlop. Change of use. Change of use of shop (class 1) to shop and amusement centre (sui generis), 17 Longrow South, Campbeltown.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\7\3\AI00005376\PlanningList00.doc Page 18
Recommendation
It is recommended that:
1. That planning permission be refused for the reason contained in the report by the Director of Development and Environment Services dated 12 September 2002;
2. The Head of Development & Building Control be authorised to issue the decision notice following the expiry of the publicity period (4.9.02), provided that no further material representations are received in the interim.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\7\3\AI00005376\PlanningList00.doc Page 19
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. D MacKinnon PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 16th January 2002 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 2nd October 2002
11th September 2002
Reference Number: 01/01818/DET Applicants Name: Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Alteration and extension of retail store and reconfiguration of living accomodation above Location: Lochview, Barmore Road, Tarbert
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Single storey rear extension to ground floor shop (19.7m x 12.3m) to provide additional sales area, storage offices and toilets; • Formation of two stairwell enclosures, roof garden to serve flats, and section of pitched roof over proposed extension; • Replacement timber shopfront, with separate customer and goods entrances; • Reconfiguration of first and second floor flats to provide single self contained 4 bedroom maisonette with revised means of access
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that permission be refused on highway safety grounds, in accordance with the views of the Trunk Roads Authority, and for the reason stated on the following page but one.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This proposal is to more than double the size of the Co-op foodstore at the junction of Barmore Road and Campbeltown Road, Tarbert. It also involves replacing the existing shopfront and reconfiguring living accommodation above. Access into the building for deliveries and access to the self-contained living accommodation is to be re-arranged.
There are no retail policy objections to the proposal, nor any adverse effects upon amenity or the character and appearance of the Tarbert Conservation Area.
The Trunk Roads Authority considers the existing on-street delivery arrangement dangerous, and will not support any enlargement of the store without improved access or servicing arrangements. This concern is also expressed by the Council’s Roads Engineers and the Tarbert & Skipness Community Council. Land to the rear is under consideration for possible residential development (subject to planning permission) by a developer who has indicated his willingness to consider the inclusion of off-street servicing arrangements for the Co-op as part of the access proposals for his intended development. The applicants have been advised of this, but have declined to either seriously investigate or to pursue that option, and have requested that their current application be determined as it stands.
(D) CONCLUSION
Although the proposal does not give rise to any policy, design or conservation issues which would prevent permission being granted, as the matter of access and servicing has not been satisfactorily addressed, I endorse the view of the Trunk Roads Authority, and recommend that permission be refused.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 20
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control
Author: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 21
REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01226/COU
1. The application relates to existing retail premises which lack off-street servicing arrangements, where deliveries are made by articulated and other vehicles which park to unload on the A83(T), close to a right angled bend where Campbeltown Road meets Barmore Road. The proposal is to refurbish and substantially extend the store which will more than double existing retail floorspace. This would be likely to involve a larger number/range of goods being retailed from the premises, whilst the size and market position of the enlarged store would be expected to lead to a greater turnover of goods. This in turn, would either involve a larger number of on-street deliveries by vehicle, or would increase the time during which delivery vehicles currently visiting the store would stand on street outside the premises, in order to offload additional quantities of goods. The proposal does not make provision for deliveries to be made other than by vehicles parked on the highway, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority that it is impractical to provide off-street servicing arrangements appropriate to this scale of retail outlet, and which would overcome the deficiencies associated with current delivery arrangements. The development would result in an increased volume of goods being delivered from vehicles parked on-street immediately adjacent to a bend, where the visibility and width is restricted, thus creating interference with the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road and danger to pedestrians, to the detriment of highway safety.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 22
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01226/COU
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Kintyre Local Plan (1984) and First Review (1988)
POL STRAT 1 – Seeks to encourage development serving a wide community of interest (which would include larger scale retail proposals) to be located in main settlements, including Tarbert.
POL BE 3 (and Structure Plan Policy HER 7) – Seek to safeguard the character and appearance of Tarbert Conservation Area.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
01/01859/CONAC – conservation area consent granted (29.4.02) for the demolition of an outbuilding (brick/render/corrugated sheet roof) to the rear of the shop premises. This has not been implemented as it currently provides storage for the shop, and would only be removed in the event that permission is forthcoming for alternative storage arrangements as part of any permission given for enlarged premises.
(ii) Consultations
Trunk Roads Authority – (letters dated 5.4.02 and 24.7.02) object to the proposal on the grounds that it will lead to an increased volume of deliveries which will exacerbate the highway safety danger posed by the existing sub-standard on-street delivery arrangements. They note that both the police and Community Council have expressed concerns about the current servicing arrangements. These involve large vehicles drawing partly up onto the pavement immediately prior to the corner which causes damage to the pavement, and causes other road users to use the middle of the road where visibility is restricted. The Trunk Roads Authority have been advised of the fact that land to the rear of the application site is under consideration by a developer for residential development, who has indicated his willingness to make land available to provide off- street servicing arrangements for the application property, in association with a joint access point to the trunk road. They have indicated their agreement to this arrangement in principle, and the applicants have been advised accordingly. The applicants have, however, declined to explore this option seriously and wish their application to be determined as submitted.
Area Roads Engineer (memo dated 24.4.02) – has endorsed the view expressed by the Trunk Roads Authority, as he considers that the delivery arrangements put the safety of other drivers at risk and restrict the free flow of traffic.
Scottish Water (letter dated 24.1.02) – no objection.
Historic Scotland (letter dated 4.2.02) – no objection.
Scottish Civic Trust (letter dated 18.2.02) – no objection.
Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (letter dated 18.3.02) – requested further details which were forwarded to them. No further response has been received.
Tarbert and Skipness Community Council (letter dated 7.2.02) – raise concerns regarding lack of car parking, lack of details about proposed trolley storage, and lack of off-street delivery provision. It is also pointed out that there is a dangerous mix of pedestrians and traffic at this location, and that consideration should be given to improving facilities for pedestrians crossing the road in the vicinity of this store.
Building Control (memo dated 25.2.02) – indicate that means of escape and refuse arrangements are not satisfactory as proposed and would require some amendment at Building Warrant stage.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 23
Head of Public Protection (memo dated 22.2.02) – no objections.
(iii) Publicity
The application was advertised in the local newspaper on 25th January 2002, as development within a conservation area. The period for representations expired on 15th February 2002. No third party representations have been received.
D. ASSESSMENT
The application relates to a stone-built end terrace three storey building, at the junction of Barmore Road and Campbeltown Road in Tarbert. It is currently occupied by a Co-op foodstore with two flats above. The property occupies a key location overlooking the harbour within the Tarbert Conservation Area. The shop is at present the main foodstore in Tarbert, but its limited retail floorspace (85m2) means that it is cramped internally and somewhat outdated.
The proposal is to modernise and extend the property, by replacing the current unattractive ground floor frontage with a new shopfront of an appropriate design for a conservation area. It is also proposed to construct a large single storey natural stone/slate rear extension, the full width of the shop and 19.7m in length, which will provide an additional 120m2 of retail floorspace, plus storage and ancillary accommodation. This will more than double the current sales area. The upper floors are to be reconfigured to provide a single unit of living accommodation, with an external stairwell enclosure, and roof terrace enclosed by a parapet wall, to the rear of the first floor.
Deliveries to the store are currently made by articulated vehicle which parks on-street adjacent to the gable end and the adjacent post office, immediately adjacent to the Campbeltown Road/ Barmore Road junction. The Trunk Roads Authority considers the existing arrangement dangerous, and will not support any enlargement of the store without improved access or servicing arrangements. Land to the rear is under consideration for possible residential development (subject to planning permission) by a developer who has indicated his willingness to consider the inclusion of off-street servicing arrangements for the Co-op as part of the access proposals for his intended development. The applicants have been advised of this but have declined to investigate this as a means of improving upon current sub-standard delivery arrangements.
The Tarbert Co-op is the principal foodstore in the village, and its modernisation and enlargement is to be welcomed in terms of providing greater retail choice locally, and helping to avoid the need for unmet demand to be satisfied by journeys to other stores in larger centres. However, one consequence of an enlarged store is that it would stock a greater number and range of goods, and would presumably aim to enlarge its turnover and market share as a consequence. This would necessitate the delivery of greater quantities of goods than hitherto. These could either take the form of additional vehicle visits, or might involve additional quantities of goods being offloaded from those vehicles already visiting the store; thereby increasing the length of time during which they are parked on the street.
The Trunk Roads Authority and the Council’s Roads Engineers are agreed that any intensification of the current sub-standard on-street delivery arrangements would not be in the interests of highway safety. They consider that a retail store of the proportions proposed in such a location, ought to be provided with dedicated off-street servicing facilities; particularly as the prospective developer of the adjacent land appears amenable to working with the applicants to provide such an arrangement. Accordingly, objections are raised to the proposal on road safety grounds.
In response to this stance, the applicants have made the following points in support of their proposal:
1) Deliveries are expected to be 3 per day, six days a week, which are the same as at present;
2) These are at: 3am – fixed bed lorry; 6am – fixed bed lorry; 7am or 10 am – articulated lorry;
3) Currently, deliveries can take up to an hour with the vehicle standing on the highway whilst goods are wheeled to a cramped outbuilding at the rear of the store;
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 24
4) The proposal will enable more efficient deliveries by way of an internal storage area with a dedicated entrance. This, along with additional staff at an enlarged store, should reduce waiting times for delivery vehicles.
Whilst the applicants and the highway engineers hold different views as to the likely consequences of the proposal for deliveries, and in turn, the implications for road safety, it is undeniable that the proposal represents a substantial enlargement and upgrading of this store, which will enhance is position in the local retail hierarchy.
In such circumstances, where opportunities exist, I consider it prudent that those opportunities to overcome, what are accepted by both parties as sub-standard and undesirable delivery arrangements, are fully explored where there is reason to believe that they may be materially worsened as a result of the application proposal. Only in the event that there were genuine and accepted obstacles which were not capable of being overcome, would I be prepared to forego the opportunity of improving unsatisfactory servicing arrangements as part of the expansion of this store.
Notwithstanding the applicant’s claim that the development will not worsen the existing situation, I am not persuaded that this will necessarily be the case, nor am I satisfied that they have genuinely considered the opportunities open to them to redress the shortcomings of their current delivery arrangements. I therefore believe that it is in the interests of the planning of the area that they should be obliged to do so by the refusal of this current application; particularly given that such servicing improvements would be commensurate with the scale of the investment that they are proposing to make in this particular site.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 25
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING0101818TARBERTCOOP00.DOC
Page 26 Page 27
Page 28 Page 29
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 12.08.02 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 02.10.02
14.09.02 Reference Number: 02/01293/OUT Applicants Name: Mr. & Mrs. J. Brolly Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of dwelling Location: Plot 3, Torran Farm, Ford
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
Erection of one dwellinghouse (outline), specifying: • siting; • means of vehicular access; • drainage arrangements by means of septic tank.
Other aspects of the development: • proposed connection to the public main for water supply.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is an application for outline planning consent for a single dwelling, which forms one of a package of applications submitted for individual house plots on this agricultural holding. Those plots which have been considered acceptable in terms of their consistency with the settlement pattern and their environmental impact have been approved under delegated powers. Those sites considered unacceptable, including this one, are being reported to Committee for determination. The plan attached indicates the locations of those recent approvals, and this site (and two others), that are considered to be unacceptable and which are being recommended for refusal.
This site is located within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. It is sited in an elevated and visible position on an open hillside above Loch Awe, which has only recently become accessible by virtue of a new access road constructed by the applicant, ostensibly for the purposes of agriculture. It is one of two plots proposed adjacent to each other (the other being Plot 4 which is of also before this Committee – 02/01370/OUT).
The development of this site would constitute prominent development, which in view of its elevation and distance from the road, would be out of character with the existing settlement pattern and the wider rural landscape setting. The openness of the hillside is a significant feature in the landscape setting of Loch Awe, and the lack of trees or topographical features to help assimilate development would mean that new buildings in this location would appear incongruous and would tend to ‘float’ in the landscape. This proposal would therefore have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Area of Local Landscape Significance.
(D) CONCLUSION
The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT 2, STRAT 2A and RRA 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995, and Policies POL RUR 1, POL RUR 2 and POL HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993. The development of this site would also be contrary to Government advice on the siting of houses in the countryside given in Planning Advice Note 36.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 30
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 14.09.02
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person: Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 31
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01293/OUT
1. The proposal, by virtue of its elevated location and its lack of relationship with the public highway and the established settlement pattern, would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, and which in view of its elevation and distance from the road, would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT 2 and STRAT 2A of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 which state that there shall be a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact upon natural and heritage resources (including landscape) that cannot easily be regenerated or reproduced.
2. The proposal, by virtue of its elevated location and its lack of relationship with the public highway and the established settlement pattern, would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, and which would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies POL RUR 1 and POL RUR 2 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993 which state that the Council shall resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact upon such areas.
3. The proposal, by virtue of its adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance, is contrary to Policies RRA 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 and POL HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993, which state that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale development in the countryside, except where there are environmental constraints; in this case an adverse impact upon natural or heritage resources requiring conservation (including landscape).
4. The proposal would represent an elevated and obtrusive form of development unrelated to the established settlement pattern, the visual impact of which would detract from the qualities of an area designated for its landscape qualities, and which contribute to the setting for Loch Awe. The development would be contrary to the advice give in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’ which seeks to ensure that new dwellings are successfully integrated into the countryside having regard to the settlement pattern established locally and the landscape character of the area.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 32
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01293/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995
STRAT 2 The Regional Development Strategy requires a sustainable approach to the conservation of natural and heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced, and there shall therefore be a presumption against development which has as adverse impact on them.
STRAT 2A Proposals for development in, or affecting, natural or heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced shall require to be justified against the following criteria,
(a) economic benefit, (b) infrastructure implications, (c) specific locational need, (d) environmental impact.
RRA 1 The Regional Development Strategy seeks to sustain existing communities in the Remoter Rural Areas, as shown on the Key Diagram inset, through support for rural settlements, the identification of opportunities for economic development, and the safeguarding of Regionally significant natural and heritage resources.
RRA 2 Within the Remoter Rural Areas the following settlement strategy is appropriate:
(d) a recognition that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale residential development in the countryside, except:
(2) where there would be an adverse impact on natural or heritage resources requiring conservation..
Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993
POL RUR 1 – The Council will seek to maintain and where possible enhance the landscape quality of National and Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts and areas of local landscape significance and within these areas will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. (The relevant part of this policy is: (d) the site being within an Areas of Local Landscape Significance, being (ii) Loch Awe). The Council will carefully monitor the environmental effects of permitted developments in these areas.
POL RUR 2 – Proposals for development in or affecting National Scenic Areas, Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts or areas of local landscape significance will require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) environmental impact; (b) locational/operational need; (c) economic benefit; (d) infrastructure and servicing implications.
POL HO 13 – In countryside outwith the inset maps and Lochgilphead/Tarbert Catchment Areas the Council is in favour of single or small scale residential development, providing there are no infrastructure servicing or environmental constraints. Particular attention will be paid to infill, rounding off and redevelopment opportunities related to existing development and landforms.
Regard will be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 and proposals which promote undesirable ribbon development, are out of scale or cumulatively affect the character of an area detrimentally are likely to be resisted.
Planning Advice Note 36 – ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’
New Housing Groups (within the countryside) – Such groupings should respect the way existing development fits into the landscape and be sympathetic in terms of scale, proportion and materials to
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 33
other buildings in the locality. The inspiration of such development should come from existing development or village layouts, not suburban estates.
Roadside Development – In remoter rural areas a case can be made for small groups of buildings built in a traditional style and materials to run alongside roads where traffic flows are low particularly where the traditional building pattern of an area includes the occasional row of roadside cottages and where a safe means of access and adequate off-road parking can be provided. This should not be seen as an invitation to string bungalows along minor roads.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
No applications have previously been made for this site, or this part of the Torran Farm hillside, but there are two further applications for house plots (also before this Committee) one adjacent to this plot (Plot 4) and the other (Plot 2) to the south, slightly further down the hillside. Both of these applications are also recommended for refusal, for similar reasons to this proposal.
Members should note, however, that within the course of the last 10 months, the Council has granted a number of other outline applications for residential building plots elsewhere within the land owned by the applicants at Torran Farm. Two of these have been granted by Committee, with the remainder being approved under delegated powers as being consistent with policy. In all, 7 permissions have been granted for individual houseplots as follows :
01/01056/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at barn, east of Torran Mhor, Ford 01/01062/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at site 2, Land west of Torran House, Ford 01/01063/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at site 1, Land west of Torran House, Ford 02/01336/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 5, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01369/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 7, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01371/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 6, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01411/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 1, Torran Farm, Ford
These permissions basically allow the development of individual dwellings, either where existing clusters of development exist, or in roadside locations where an appropriate degree of separation exists consistent with the landscape and settlement pattern, and in one case, in a location within the topography of a valley and consistent with the settlement pattern. These permissions did not individually or cumulatively produce any adverse environmental impact, but they have had the effect of reducing the overall capacity of Torran Farm to satisfactorily absorb further development.
(ii) Consultations
• Area Roads Engineer (response received 28.08.02): no objections subject to conditions requiring a 30 metre visibility splay at the junction of the private access with the classified road and in relation to the specifications of the bellmouth. • Scottish Water (letter received 28.08.02): no objections • Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter received 05.09.02 ): no objections. • West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter received 05.09.02): no objections subject to a condition to ensures that no development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works as may agreed by the Service and approved by the Planning Authority.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised a ‘potential departure’ from the approved Development Plan. The period for any representations ended on the 12.09.02 and no representations have been received.
(iv) Additional Information submitted by the Applicants
The applicants have submitted a letter (2 September 2002) in relation to this application, and the above mentioned ‘potential departure’ advertisement to the Development Plan. The letter expresses their opinion that:
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 34
POL RUR 1 is not contravened, since • the site is not seen from the road or other side of the loch; • banking/planting could be incorporated to help screen development; • the site is adjacent to ruins of older buildings that reflect the rural pattern of development over the years and as mirrored on the opposite side of the loch.
POL RUR 2 is not contravened, since • there is no environmental impact based on their points in relation to RUR 1 in the preceding paragraph; • infrastructure shall be brought in to provide mains water; • economic benefit would arise, commenting that any income generated by this aspect of the farms diversification plans would further help the following aspirations: holiday homes, hostel accommodation, water sports, and a bar/farm shop.
Comments on the matters raised by the applicants: POL RUR 1 clearly defines this site as within the Loch Awe designated area of local landscape significance. All their points are considered in relation to POL RUR 2. It is accepted that the site can not be seen from the local road on this side of the loch, due to the topography, but any building -–even single storey – sited on this plot would be clearly visible from the opposite side of the loch, from where it would be seen in an isolated elevated location on a rising and essentially barren hillside. Whilst it is argued by the applicants that the proposal is consistent with an earlier settlement pattern, - evidenced by the ruin of a few buildings; probably a small croft-stone hillside dwelling and byre in the vicinity of this and the other sites before Committee; the granting of the other permissions in more favourable locations (see history section above) has resulted in development capacity being reduced in this less favourable location. The other points mentioned by the applicants cannot in my view override the more critical issue of adverse environmental impact.
(C) ASSESSMENT
Area of Common Landscape Character:
The application site lies within a rural setting to the north of the settlement of Ford within which built development is not a key feature of the landscape. The area of common landscape character is entered upon leaving the forested areas to the north of Ford and continues along the northern edge of Loch Awe up to the horticulture development at Inverliever, and includes Inverliever Lodge. To the west of the road, the landscape consists of relatively steep slopes that provide rough hill grazing. Within this area there are rocky outcrops and clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Loch Awe lies to the east of the road with relatively narrow areas of improved grazing by the lochside, again this area contains rocky outcrops and small clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Key environmental features within the area include the distinctive hill fort Dun Toiseach, a standing stone at Torran, and cairn by Inverliever, and the open fields which border An Loden.
Development within the area of common landscape character is restricted to two clusters, the first is located along the public highway in the vicinity of Torran Farm and the second cluster of development is focused along the public highway around the horticultural development at Inverliever. There is no built development in between the two existing clusters of development other than the ruins mentioned in the preceding section. Beyond Inverliever there is a small traditional white croft house on rising ground and further on two further old stone houses which "fit” into the landscape. On the opposite side of the loch two well-separated traditional farm dwellings exist. These are well related to the topography and existing tress which surround them. There is no other development evidenced within this area of common landscape character.
Capacity for Further Development within the Area of Common Landscape Character:
The capacity for further development within the area of common landscape character is extremely limited. In early discussions with the applicants it was suggested that this area would have the potential to absorb successfully only 3 or 4 dwellings, located sensitively within or on the edge of existing development clusters. In order to have due regard to the established settlement pattern, it was
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 35
considered that these would be expected to be situated on sites which relate to the public highway, and which would not give rise to an adverse impact upon the rural character or setting of the area. It was further suggested that dwellings proposed within the area of common landscape character should be restricted to properties which are single or 1½ storeys in height, and should be of a traditional design and finish.
As evidenced in the historical section above, a total of 7 dwellings have in actual fact been approved following careful consideration. Once these are built there will be no further capacity within the landscape for any further development.
The Current Proposal
The current proposal is for outline planning consent for the erection of a dwelling within a plot on rising barren hillside just to the south of Inverliever, adjacent to another proposed site (Plot 4), and near to a further proposed site (Plot 2).
I. Environmental Impact: The proposed dwelling is to be located on an isolated elevated location unrelated to the existing public highway. The site is clearly open to view from positions viewed from across the loch and from where the development, if built, would give rise to a serious environmental impact upon the overall landscape. The site is located within an attractive area of countryside where development is not a key feature within the landscape. Where development does occur, it is primarily in close proximity to the public highway. Any former hillside habitation is long abandoned and totally ruinous.
The application site is unrelated to the public highway, and its elevated location makes it not only prominent within the wider landscape, but also out of character with that of the existing development pattern of the area. The openness of the hillside is a significant feature in the landscape setting of Loch Awe, and the lack of trees or topographical features to help assimilate development would mean that new buildings in this location would appear incongruous, and would tend to ‘float’ in the landscape. Although some isolated habitation of the hillside appears to have existed in the past, the remains of those buildings are now totally ruined and they do not therefore provide support or any context for the re-introduction of dwellings into this area. The construction of a dwelling on this site would therefore not be well related to existing development, nor would it be sited in such a position that it could be capable of being absorbed into the wider setting without giving rise to an adverse impact upon the appearance of the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance.
Locational/Operational Need:
No claim of locational or operational need has been submitted in support of the application.
III. Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
IV. Infrastructure and Servicing Implications
The proposed dwelling would be accessed via an improvement to an existing agricultural access served from the public highway. Water would be by connection to the public water main, and foul drainage would be by installation of a new septic tank and soakaway (no details submitted). Consultation responses have not indicated that there are any infrastructure or servicing constraints associated with the development of this site, although the proposed provision of the connection to the public main would be at some expense.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT30201293WRDHAMENDED00.DOC
Page 36 Page 37
Page 38 Page 39
Page 40 Page 41
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 12.08.02 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 02.10.02
11.09.02 Reference Number: 02/01339/OUT Applicants Name: Mr. & Mrs. J. Brolly Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of dwelling Location: Plot 2, Torran Farm, Ford
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
Erection of one dwellinghouse (Outline), specifying: • siting • means of vehicular access • drainage arrangements by means of septic tank.
Other aspects of the development: • proposed connection to the public main for water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is an application for outline planning consent for a single dwelling, which forms one of a package of applications submitted for individual house plots on this agricultural holding. Those plots which have been considered acceptable in terms of their consistency with the settlement pattern and their environmental impact have been approved under delegated powers. Those sites considered unacceptable, including this one are being reported to Committee for determination.
This site is located within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. It is sited in an elevated and visible position on an open hillside above Loch Awe, which has only recently become accessible by virtue of a new access road constructed by the applicant ostensibly for the purposes of agriculture.
The development of this site would constitute prominent development, which in view of its elevation and distance from the road, would be out of character with the existing settlement pattern and the wider rural landscape setting. The openness of the hillside is a significant feature in the landscape setting of Loch Awe, and the lack of trees or topographical features to help assimilate development would mean that new buildings in this location would appear incongruous and would tend to ‘float’ in the landscape. It would therefore have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Area of Local Landscape Significance.
(D) CONCLUSION
The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT 2, STRAT 2A and RRA 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995, and Policies POL RUR 1, POL RUR 2 and POL HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993. The development of this site would also be contrary to Government advice on the siting of houses in the countryside given in Planning Advice Note 36.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 42
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 11.09.02
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person : Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 43
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01339/OUT
1. The proposal, by virtue of its elevated location and its lack of relationship with the public highway and the established settlement pattern, would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, and which in view of its elevation and distance from the road, would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT 2 and STRAT 2A of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 which state that there shall be a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact upon natural and heritage resources (including landscape) that cannot easily be regenerated or reproduced.
2. The proposal, by virtue of its elevated location and its lack of relationship with the public highway and the established settlement pattern, would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, and which would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies POL RUR 1 and POL RUR 2 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993 which state that the Council shall resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact upon such areas.
3. The proposal, by virtue of its adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance, is contrary to Policies RRA 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 and POL HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993, which state that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale development in the countryside, except where there are environmental constraints; in this case an adverse impact upon natural or heritage resources requiring conservation (including landscape).
4. The proposal would represent an elevated and obtrusive form of development unrelated to the established settlement pattern, the visual impact of which would detract from the qualities of an area designated for its landscape qualities, and which contribute to the setting for Loch Awe. The development would be contrary to the advice give in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’ which seeks to ensure that new dwellings are successfully integrated into the countryside having regard to the settlement pattern established locally and the landscape character of the area.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 44
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01339/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995
STRAT 2 The Regional Development Strategy requires a sustainable approach to the conservation of natural and heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced, and there shall therefore be a presumption against development which has as adverse impact on them.
STRAT 2A Proposals for development in, or affecting, natural or heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced shall require to be justified against the following criteria,
(a) economic benefit, (b) infrastructure implications, (c) specific locational need, (d) environmental impact.
RRA 1 The Regional Development Strategy seeks to sustain existing communities in the Remoter Rural Areas, as shown on the Key Diagram inset, through support for rural settlements, the identification of opportunities for economic development, and the safeguarding of Regionally significant natural and heritage resources.
RRA 2 Within the Remoter Rural Areas the following settlement strategy is appropriate:
(d) a recognition that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale residential development in the countryside, except:
(2) where there would be an adverse impact on natural or heritage resources requiring conservation..
Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993
POL RUR 1 – The Council will seek to maintain and where possible enhance the landscape quality of National and Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts and areas of local landscape significance and within these areas will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. (The relevant part of this policy is: (d) the site being within an Areas of Local Landscape Significance, being (ii) Loch Awe). The Council will carefully monitor the environmental effects of permitted developments in these areas.
POL RUR 2 – Proposals for development in or affecting National Scenic Areas, Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts or areas of local landscape significance will require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) environmental impact; (b) locational/operational need; (c) economic benefit; (d) infrastructure and servicing implications.
POL HO 13 – In countryside outwith the inset maps and Lochgilphead/Tarbert Catchment Areas the Council is in favour of single or small scale residential development, providing there are no infrastructure servicing or environmental constraints. Particular attention will be paid to infill, rounding off and redevelopment opportunities related to existing development and landforms.
Regard will be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 and proposals which promote undesirable ribbon development, are out of scale or cumulatively affect the character of an area detrimentally are likely to be resisted.
Planning Advice Note 36 – ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 45
New Housing Groups (within the countryside) – Such groupings should respect the way existing development fits into the landscape and be sympathetic in terms of scale, proportion and materials to other buildings in the locality. The inspiration of such development should come from existing development or village layouts, not suburban estates.
Roadside Development – In remoter rural areas a case can be made for small groups of buildings built in a traditional style and materials to run alongside roads where traffic flows are low particularly where the traditional building pattern of an area includes the occasional row of roadside cottages and where a safe means of access and adequate off-road parking can be provided. This should not be seen as an invitation to string bungalows along minor roads.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
No applications have previously been made for this site, or this part of the Torran Farm hillside, but there are two further applications for house plots further up the hillside (Plots 3 & 4) – again recommended for refusal for similar reasons to this proposal.
Members should note however, that within the course of the last 10 months, the Council has granted a number of other outline applications for residential building plots elsewhere within the land owned by the applicants at Torran Farm. Two of these have been granted by Committee, with the remainder being approved under delegated powers as being consistent with policy. In all, 7 permissions have been granted for individual houseplots as follows:
01/01056/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at barn, east of Torran Mhor, Ford 01/01062/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at site 2, Land west of Torran House, Ford 01/01063/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at site 1, Land west of Torran House, Ford 02/01336/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 5, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01369/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 7, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01371/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 6, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01411/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 1, Torran Farm, Ford
These permissions basically allow the development of individual dwellings either where existing clusters of development exist, in roadside locations where an appropriate degree of separation exists consistent with the landscape and settlement pattern, and in a further incidence (plot 5) well positioned within the topography of a valley consistent again with the settlement pattern. These permissions did not produce any adverse environmental impact.
(ii) Consultations
• Area Roads Engineer (response received 28.08.02): no objections subject to conditions requiring a 30 metre visibility splay at the junction of the private access with the classified road and in relation to the specifications of the bellmouth. • Scottish Water (letter received 27.08.02): no objections • Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter received 04.09.02): no objections. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter received 03.09.02): no objections subject to an important condition which ensures no development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works as may agreed by the Service and approved by the Planning Authority.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised a ‘potential departure’ from the approved Development Plan. The period for any representations ended on the 12.09.02 and no representations have been received.
(iv) Additional Information Lodged by the Applicants
The applicants have submitted a letter (2 September 2002) in relation to this application, and the above mentioned ‘potential departure’ advertisement to the Development Plan. The letter expresses their opinion that :
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 46
POL RUR 1 is not contravened, since • the site is not seen from the road or other side of the loch; • banking/planting could be incorporated to help screen the development; • the site is adjacent to ruins of older buildings that reflect the rural pattern of development over the years and as mirrored on the opposite side of the loch
POL RUR 2 is not contravened, since • since there is no environmental impact based on their points in relation to RUR 1 in the preceding paragraph; • infrastructure shall be brought in to provide mains water; • economic benefit would arise, commenting that any income generated by this aspect of the farms diversification plans would further help the following aspirations: holiday homes, hostel accommodation, water sports, and a bar/farm shop.
Comments on the matters raised by the applicants: POL RUR 1 clearly defines this site as within the Loch Awe designated area of local landscape significance. All their points are considered in relation to POL RUR 2. It is accepted that the site can not be seen from the local road on this side of the loch, due to the topography, but any building -–even single storey – sited on this plot would be clearly visible from the opposite side of the loch, from where it would be seen in an isolated elevated location on a rising and essentially barren hillside. Whilst it is argued by the applicants that the proposal is consistent with an earlier settlement pattern, - evidenced by the ruin of a few buildings; probably a small croft-stone hillside dwelling and byre in the vicinity of this and the other sites before Committee; the granting of the other permissions in more favourable locations (see history section above) has resulted in development capacity being reduced in this less favourable location. The other points mentioned by the applicants cannot in my view override the more critical issue of adverse environmental impact.
(C) ASSESSMENT
Area of Common Landscape Character:
The application site lies within a rural setting to the north of the settlement of Ford within which built development is not a key feature of the landscape. The area of common landscape character is entered upon leaving the forested areas to the north of Ford and continues along the northern edge of Loch Awe up to the horticulture development at Inverliever, and includes Inverliever Lodge. To the west of the road, the landscape consists of relatively steep slopes that provide rough hill grazing, within this area there are rocky outcrops and clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Loch Awe lies to the east of the road with relatively narrow areas of improved grazing by the lochside, again this area contains rocky outcrops and small clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Key environmental features within the area include the distinctive hill fort Dun Toiseach, a standing stone at Torran and cairn by Inverliever, and the open fields which border An Loden.
Development within the area of common landscape character is restricted to two clusters, the first is located along the public highway in the vicinity of Torran Farm and the second cluster of development is focused along the public highway around the horticultural development at Inverliever. There is no built development in between the two existing clusters of development other than the ruins mentioned in the preceding section. Beyond Inverliever there is a small traditional white croft house on rising ground and further on two further old stone houses which "fit” into the landscape. On the opposite side of the loch two well separated traditional farm dwellings exist well related to the topography and existing tress which surround them. There is no other development evidenced within this area of common landscape character.
Capacity for Further Development within the Area of Common Landscape Character:
The capacity for further development within the area of common landscape character is extremely limited. In early discussions with the applicants it was suggested that this area would have the potential to absorb successfully only 3 or 4 dwellings, located sensitively within or on the edge of existing development clusters. In order to have due regard to the established settlement pattern, it was considered that these would be expected to be situated on sites which relate to the public highway, and which would not give rise to an adverse impact upon the rural character or setting of the area. It was
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 47
further suggested that dwellings proposed within the area of common landscape character should be restricted to properties which are single or 1½ storeys in height, and should be of a traditional design and finish.
As evidenced in the historical section above, a total of 7 dwellings have in actual fact been approved following careful consideration. Once these are built there will be no further capacity within the landscape for any further development.
The Current Proposal:
The current proposal is for outline planning consent for the erection of a dwelling within a plot on rising barren hillside just to the south of Inverliever, and close to two further equally conspicuous proposed sites (Plots 3 and 4 ) which also before this Committee.
I. Environmental Impact: The proposed dwelling is to be located on an isolated elevated location unrelated to the existing public highway. The site is clearly open to view from positions viewed from across the loch and from where the development, if built, would give rise to a serious environmental impact upon the overall landscape. The site is located within an attractive area of countryside where development is not a key feature within the landscape. Where development does occur, it is primarily in close proximity to the public highway. Any former hillside habitation is long abandoned and totally ruinous.
The application site is unrelated to the public highway, and its elevated location makes it not only prominent within the wider landscape, but also out of character with that of the existing development pattern of the area. The openness of the hillside is a significant feature in the landscape setting of Loch Awe, and the lack of trees or topographical features to help assimilate development would mean that new buildings in this location would appear incongruous, and would tend to ‘float’ in the landscape. Although some isolated habitation of the hillside appears to have existed in the past, the remains of those buildings are now totally ruined and they do not therefore provide support or any context for the re-introduction of dwellings into this area. The construction of a dwelling on this site would therefore not be well related to existing development, nor would it be sited in such a position that it could be capable of being absorbed into the wider setting without giving rise to an adverse impact upon the appearance of the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance.
II. Locational/Operational Need:
No claim of locational or operational need has been submitted in support of the application.
III. Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
IV. Infrastructure and Servicing Implications
The proposed dwelling would be accessed via an improvement to an existing agricultural access served from the public highway. Water would be by connection to the public water main, and foul drainage would be by installation of a new septic tank and soakaway (no details submitted). Consultation responses have not indicated that there are any infrastructure or servicing constraints associated with the development of this site, although the provision of the connection to the public main would be at some expense.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT20201339WR11.09.0200.DOC
Page 48 Page 49
Page 50 Page 51
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Alison Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 12.08.02 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 02.10.02
14.09.02 Reference Number: 02/01370/OUT Applicants Name: Mr. & Mrs. J. Brolly Application Type: Outline Application Description: Erection of dwelling Location: Plot 4, Torran Farm, Ford
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
Erection of one dwellinghouse (Outline), specifying: • siting • means of vehicular access • drainage arrangements by means of septic tank.
Other aspects of the development: • proposed connection to the public main for water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This is an application for outline planning consent for a single dwelling, which forms one of a package of applications submitted for individual house plots on this agricultural holding. Those plots which have been considered acceptable in terms of their consistency with the settlement pattern and their environmental impact have been approved under delegated powers. Those sites considered unacceptable, including this one, are being reported to Committee for determination.
This site is located within the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. It is sited in an elevated and visible position on an open hillside above Loch Awe, which has only recently become accessible by virtue of a new access road constructed by the applicant, ostensibly for the purposes of agriculture. It is one of two plots, next to one another (the other, plot 3 which is also before this Committee – 02/01293/OUT).
The development of this site would constitute prominent development, which in view of its elevation and distance from the road, would be out of character with the wider rural landscape setting. The openness of the hillside is a significant feature in the landscape setting of Loch Awe, and the lack of trees or topographical features to help assimilate development would mean that new buildings in this location would appear incongruous and would tend to ‘float’ in the landscape. The proposal would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Area of Local Landscape Significance.
(D) CONCLUSION
The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT 2, STRAT 2A and RRA 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995, and Policies POL RUR 1, POL RUR 2 and POL HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993. The development of this site would also be contrary to Government advice on the siting of houses in the countryside given in Planning Advice Note 36.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 52
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 14.09.02
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person : Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 53
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01370/OUT
1. The proposal, by virtue of its elevated location and its lack of relationship with the public highway and the established settlement pattern, would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, and which in view of its elevation and distance from the road, would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT 2 and STRAT 2A of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 which state that there shall be a presumption against development which would have an adverse impact upon natural and heritage resources (including landscape) that cannot easily be regenerated or reproduced.
2. The proposal, by virtue of its elevated location and its lack of relationship with the public highway and the established settlement pattern, would constitute prominent development which is out of character with the wider landscape setting, and which would have an adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance. The proposal is contrary to Policies POL RUR 1 and POL RUR 2 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993 which state that the Council shall resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact upon such areas.
3. The proposal, by virtue of its adverse environmental impact upon the character and appearance of the designated Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance, is contrary to Policies RRA 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 and POL HO 13 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993, which state that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale development in the countryside, except where there are environmental constraints; in this case an adverse impact upon natural or heritage resources requiring conservation (including landscape).
4. The proposal would represent an elevated and obtrusive form of development unrelated to the established settlement pattern, the visual impact of which would detract from the qualities of an area designated for its landscape qualities, and which contribute to the setting for Loch Awe. The development would be contrary to the advice give in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’ which seeks to ensure that new dwellings are successfully integrated into the countryside having regard to the settlement pattern established locally and the landscape character of the area.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 54
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01370/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995
STRAT 2 The Regional Development Strategy requires a sustainable approach to the conservation of natural and heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced, and there shall therefore be a presumption against development which has as adverse impact on them.
STRAT 2A Proposals for development in, or affecting, natural or heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced shall require to be justified against the following criteria,
(a) economic benefit, (b) infrastructure implications, (c) specific locational need, (d) environmental impact.
RRA 1 The Regional Development Strategy seeks to sustain existing communities in the Remoter Rural Areas, as shown on the Key Diagram inset, through support for rural settlements, the identification of opportunities for economic development, and the safeguarding of Regionally significant natural and heritage resources.
RRA 2 Within the Remoter Rural Areas the following settlement strategy is appropriate:
(d) a recognition that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale residential development in the countryside, except:
(2) where there would be an adverse impact on natural or heritage resources requiring conservation..
Mid Argyll Local Plan (2nd Alt.) 1993
POL RUR 1 – The Council will seek to maintain and where possible enhance the landscape quality of National and Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts and areas of local landscape significance and within these areas will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. (The relevant part of this policy is: (d) the site being within an Areas of Local Landscape Significance, being (ii) Loch Awe). The Council will carefully monitor the environmental effects of permitted developments in these areas.
POL RUR 2 – Proposals for development in or affecting National Scenic Areas, Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts or areas of local landscape significance will require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) environmental impact; (b) locational/operational need; (c) economic benefit; (d) infrastructure and servicing implications.
POL HO 13 – In countryside outwith the inset maps and Lochgilphead/Tarbert Catchment Areas the Council is in favour of single or small scale residential development, providing there are no infrastructure servicing or environmental constraints. Particular attention will be paid to infill, rounding off and redevelopment opportunities related to existing development and landforms.
Regard will be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 and proposals which promote undesirable ribbon development, are out of scale or cumulatively affect the character of an area detrimentally are likely to be resisted.
Planning Advice Note 36 – ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’
New Housing Groups (within the countryside) – Such groupings should respect the way existing development fits into the landscape and be sympathetic in terms of scale, proportion and materials to other buildings in the locality. The inspiration of such development should come from existing development or village layouts, not suburban estates.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 55
Roadside Development – In remoter rural areas a case can be made for small groups of buildings built in a traditional style and materials to run alongside roads where traffic flows are low particularly where the traditional building pattern of an area includes the occasional row of roadside cottages and where a safe means of access and adequate off-road parking can be provided. This should not be seen as an invitation to string bungalows along minor roads.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
No applications have previously been made for this site, or this part of the Torran Farm hillside, but there are two further applications for house plots (also before this Committee) one adjacent to this plot (Plot 3) and the other (Plot 2) to the south, slightly further down the hillside. Both of these applications are also recommended for refusal, for similar reasons to this proposal.
Members should note, however, that within the course of the last 10 months, the Council has granted a number of other outline applications for residential building plots elsewhere within the land owned by the applicants at Torran Farm. Two of these have been granted by Committee, with the remainder being approved under delegated powers as being consistent with policy. In all, 7 permissions have been granted for individual houseplots as follows :
01/01056/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at barn, east of Torran Mhor, Ford 01/01062/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at site 2, Land west of Torran House, Ford 01/01063/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at site 1, Land west of Torran House, Ford 02/01336/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 5, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01369/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 7, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01371/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 6, Torran Farm, Ford 02/01411/OUT – site for erection of a dwelling at plot 1, Torran Farm, Ford
These permissions basically allow the development of individual dwellings, either where existing clusters of development exist, or in roadside locations where an appropriate degree of separation exists consistent with the landscape and settlement pattern, and in one case, in a location within the topography of a valley and consistent with the settlement pattern. These permissions did not individually or cumulatively produce any adverse environmental impact, but they have had the effect of reducing the overall capacity of Torran Farm to satisfactorily absorb further development.
(ii) Consultations
• Area Roads Engineer (response received 03.09.02): no objections subject to conditions requiring a 30 metre visibility splay at the junction of the private access with the classified road and in relation to the specifications of the bellmouth. • Scottish Water ( letter received 28.08.02 ): no objections • Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter received 05.09.02): no objections, and no intention to pursue a consent to a total soakaway • West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter received 05.09.02): no objections subject to an important condition which ensures no development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works as may agreed by the Service and approved by the Planning Authority.
(iii) Publicity
The application has been advertised a ‘potential departure’ from the approved Development Plan. The period for any representations ended on the 12.09.02 and no representations have been received.
(iv) Additional Information Lodged by the Applicants
The applicants have submitted a letter (2 September 2002) in relation to this application, and the above mentioned ‘potential departure’ advertisement to the Development Plan. The letter expresses their opinion that:
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 56
POL RUR 1 is not contravened, since • the site is not seen from the road or other side of the loch; • banking/planting could be incorporated to help screen development; • the site is adjacent to ruins of older buildings that reflect the rural pattern of development over the years and as mirrored on the opposite side of the loch.
POL RUR 2 is not contravened, since • since there is no environmental impact based on their points in relation to RUR 1 in the preceding paragraph; • infrastructure shall be brought in to provide mains water; • economic benefit would arise, commenting that any income generated by this aspect of the farms diversification plans would further help the following aspirations: holiday homes, hostel accommodation, water sports, and a bar/farm shop.
Comments on the matters raised by the applicants: POL RUR 1 clearly defines this site as within the Loch Awe designated area of local landscape significance. All their points are considered in relation to POL RUR 2. It is accepted that the site can not be seen from the local road on this side of the loch, due to the topography, but any building -–even single storey – sited on this plot would be clearly visible from the opposite side of the loch, from where it would be seen in an isolated elevated location on a rising and essentially barren hillside. Whilst it is argued by the applicants that the proposal is consistent with an earlier settlement pattern, - evidenced by the ruin of a few buildings; probably a small croft-stone hillside dwelling and byre in the vicinity of this and the other sites before Committee; the granting of the other permissions in more favourable locations (see history section above) has resulted in development capacity being reduced in this less favourable location. The other points mentioned by the applicants cannot in my view override the more critical issue of adverse environmental impact.
(C) ASSESSMENT
Area of Common Landscape Character:
The application site lies within a rural setting to the north of the settlement of Ford within which built development is not a key feature of the landscape. The area of common landscape character is entered upon leaving the forested areas to the north of Ford and continues along the northern edge of Loch Awe up to the horticulture development at Inverliever and includes Inverliever Lodge. To the west of the road the landscape consists of relatively steep slopes that provide rough hill grazing, within this area there are rocky outcrops and clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Loch Awe lies to the east of the road with relatively narrow areas of improved grazing by the lochside, again this area contains rocky outcrops and small clusters of native broadleaf woodland. Key environmental features within the area include the distinctive hill fort Dun Toiseach, a standing stone at Torran and cairn by Inverliever, and the open fields which border An Loden.
Development within the area of common landscape character is restricted to two clusters, the first is located along the public highway in the vicinity of Torran Farm and the second cluster of development is focused along the public highway around the horticultural development at Inverliever. There is no built development in between the two existing clusters of development other than the ruins mentioned in the preceding section. Beyond Inverliever there is a small traditional white croft house on rising ground and further on two further old stone houses which "fit” into the landscape. On the opposite side of the loch two well separated traditional farm dwellings exist. These are well related to the topography and existing tress which surround them. There is no other development evidenced within this area of common landscape character.
Capacity for Further Development within the Area of Common Landscape Character:
The capacity for further development within the area of common landscape character is extremely limited. In early discussions with the applicants it was suggested that this would have the potential to absorb successfully only 3 or 4 dwellings located sensitively within or on the edge of existing development clusters. In order to have due regard to the established settlement pattern, it was considered that these would be expected to be situated on sites which relate to the public highway and which would not give rise to an adverse impact upon the rural character or setting of the area. It was further suggested that dwellings proposed within the area of common landscape character should
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 57
be restricted to properties which are single or 1½ storeys in height, and should be of a traditional design and finish.
As evidenced in the historical section above, a total of 7 dwellings have in actual fact been approved following careful consideration.. Once these are built there will be no further capacity within the landscape for any further development.
The Current Proposal:
The current proposal is for outline planning consent for the erection of a dwelling within a plot on rising barren hillside just to the south of Inverliever, adjacent to another proposed site (Plot 3) and near to a further site (Plot 2).
I. Environmental Impact: The proposed dwelling is to be located on an isolated elevated location unrelated to the existing public highway. The site is clearly open to view from positions viewed from across the loch and from where the development, if built, would give rise to a serious environmental impact upon the overall landscape. The site is located within an attractive area of countryside where development is not a key feature within the landscape. Where development does occur, it is primarily in close proximity to the public highway. Any former hillside habitation is long abandoned and totally ruinous.
The application site is unrelated to the public highway, and its elevated location makes it not only prominent within the wider landscape, but also out of character with that of the existing development pattern of the area. The openness of the hillside is a significant feature in the landscape setting of Loch Awe, and the lack of trees or topographical features to help assimilate development would mean that new buildings in this location would appear incongruous, and would tend to ‘float’ in the landscape. Although some isolated habitation of the hillside appears to have existed in the past, the remains of those buildings are now totally ruined and they do not therefore provide support or any context for the re-introduction of dwellings into this area. The construction of a dwelling on this site would therefore not be well related to existing development, nor would it be sited in such a position that it could be capable of being absorbed into the wider setting without giving rise to an adverse impact upon the appearance of the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Significance.
II. Locational/Operational Need:
No claim of locational or operational need has been submitted in support of the application.
III. Economic Benefit:
None other than that associated with construction.
IV. Infrastructure and Servicing Implications
The proposed dwelling would be accessed via an improvement to an existing agricultural access served from the public highway. Water would be by connection to the public water main, and foul drainage would be by installation of a new septic tank and soakaway (no details submitted). Consultation responses have not indicated that there are any infrastructure or servicing constraints associated with the development of this site, although the provision of the connection to the public main would be at some expense.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGFORDPLOT40201370WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 58 Page 59
Page 60 Page 61
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor Bruce Robertson PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 19.08.02 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 02.10.02
14.09.02
Reference Number: 02/01452/DET Applicants Name: Mr. P. Brown Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Erection of a dwelling house Location: Land referred to as The Weaver’s House, Kilmory Knapp, Knapdale
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• erection of a dwelling house • vehicular access to parking area for the same • installation of septic tank, connected to a proposed closed loop drainage field
Other aspects of the development • connection to an existing private water supply
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused as being contrary to approved Development Plan policy in respect of the protection of the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This application relates to the proposed construction of a new dwelling on the site of a ruined building adjacent to St Maelrubha’s Chapel and the MacMillans Cross, both of which are Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings, situated within the Knapdale National Scenic Area.
The application site is situated in close proximity to the protected site, the surroundings of which have already been subject to limited redevelopment for residential purposes, and which are therefore sensitive to further developments which would cumulatively impinge further upon the setting of this historic site.
The design scale and positioning of this building is such that it would adversely affect the setting of these Scheduled Monuments to an unacceptable degree, particularly having regard to the number and position of existing buildings, and it would compromise the character of this protected historic site.
Two representations have been received objecting to the proposal. The views of Historic Scotland are awaited and will be reported verbally.
(D) CONCLUSION The development is contrary to approved Structure Plan Policies STRAT 2, 2A, RRA2 (d)(2), SAS1 and HER 1. It is lso contrary to approved Local Plan policies RUR 1, RUR 2 and BE 1A and the advice given in NPPG’s 5 and 18 and Historic Scotlands ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ .
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 62
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 14.09.02
Author: Derek Hay 01546 604083 Contact Person : Richard Kerr 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 63
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 02/01452/DET
1. The application site is located in close proximity to proximity to St. Maelrubha’s Chapel and the MacMillan’s Cross both of which are Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its size, design and location would adversely affect the setting of the chapel and cross, particularly when regard is had to the cumulative impact of this proposed building along with other existing buildings in the vicinity of this protected site. Its relationship with the protected site is such that it would produce a claustrophobic effect by diminishing the sense of space around the chapel. This impact would adversely affect the surroundings of the chapel, both when viewed in the context of adjoining buildings on approach from the road or the beach, and at close quarters by persons visiting the site. The development would therefore contravene Policies STRAT 2, STRAT 2A , RRA 2(d)(2) and SAS 1 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan (1995), and Policies RUR 1 and RUR 2 of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (1985, and alterations 1989 and 1993), which state that there shall be a presumption against development which would adversely affect National Scenic Areas, and in particular, heritage resources within those areas that cannot easily be regenerated or reproduced.
2. The application site is located in close proximity to proximity to St. Maelrubha’s Chapel and the MacMillan’s Cross both of which are Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its size, design and location would adversely affect the setting of the chapel and cross, particularly when regard is had to the cumulative impact of this proposed building along with other existing buildings in the vicinity of this protected site. Its relationship with the protected site is such that it would produce a claustrophobic effect by diminishing the sense of space around the chapel. This impact would adversely affect the surroundings of the chapel, both when viewed in the context of adjoining buildings on approach from the road or the beach, and at close quarters by persons visiting the site. The development would therefore contravene Policy HER 1 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan (1995), and Policy BE 1(A) of the Mid Argyll Local Plan (1985, and First Alterations 1989), which seek to protect Scheduled Ancient Monuments from developments with adverse environmental impacts upon them.
3. The development, by reason of its size design and location in proximity to St. Maelrubha’s Chapel and the MacMillan’s Cross will degrade, and contribute to the urbanisation of, the setting of these Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed buildings, contrary to the advice given in National Planning Policy Guidance Notes 5 (Archaeology) and 18 (Historic Environment), and that given by Historic Scotland in its ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ (1998).
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 64
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01370/OUT
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995
STRAT 2 - The Regional Development Strategy requires a sustainable approach to the conservation of natural and heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced, and there shall therefore be a presumption against development which has as adverse impact on them.
STRAT 2A - Proposals for development in, or affecting, natural or heritage resources that cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced shall require to be justified against the following criteria,
(a) economic benefit, (b) infrastructure implications, (c) specific locational need, (d) environmental impact.
SAS 1 - In accordance with Policy STRAT 2 there shall be a general presumption against proposals for prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact in the Knapdale National Scenic Area.
HER 1 - In accordance with Policy STRAT 2 there shall be a general presumption against development which has an adverse environmental impact on scheduled ancient monuments and other regionally significant archaeological locations and their settings.
RRA 2 - Within the Remoter Rural Areas the following settlement strategy is appropriate:
(d) a recognition that there shall be a presumption in favour of single or small scale residential development in the countryside, except:
(2) where there would be an adverse impact on natural or heritage resources requiring conservation, and, (3) in areas where Local plans have established that such a presumption shall not apply.
Mid Argyll Local Plan 1985, (1st Alt.)1989 and (2nd Alt.) 1993
POL RUR 1 – The Council will seek to maintain and where possible enhance the landscape quality of National and Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts and areas of local landscape significance and within these areas will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. (The relevant part of this policy is: (a) the site being within the Knapdale National Scenic Area).
POL RUR 2 – Proposals for development in or affecting National Scenic Areas, Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts or areas of local landscape significance will require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) environmental impact; (b) locational/operational need; (c) economic benefit; (d) infrastructure and servicing implications.
POL HO 13 – In countryside outwith the inset maps and Lochgilphead/Tarbert Catchment Areas the Council is in favour of single or small scale residential development, providing there are no infrastructure servicing or environmental constraints. Particular attention will be paid to infill, rounding off and redevelopment opportunities related to existing development and landforms.
Regard will be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 and proposals which promote undesirable ribbon development, are out of scale or cumulatively affect the character of an area detrimentally are likely to be resisted.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 65
POL BE (1A) - The Council will seek to protect the sites and settings of Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest, Ancient Monuments and Sites of Archaeological Importance from developments which would have a detrimental impact.
Planning Advice Note 36 – ‘Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside’
New Housing Groups (within the countryside) – Such groupings should respect the way existing development fits into the landscape and be sympathetic in terms of scale, proportion and materials to other buildings in the locality.
NPPG’s 8 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ and 18 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’.
Advise Planning Authorities to consider the implications of developments upon the settings of listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments as material considerations in the determination of applications near to such sites, and that proposals with adverse effects should be resisted. This advice is reinforced by that given by Historic Scotland in its ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ (1998).
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
None
(ii) Consultations
• Historic Scotland: (letter received 28.08.02): provides a holding response whilst awaiting final comment, the outcome of which will be reported verbally at the meeting. • West of Scotland Archaeology Service: (letter received 06.09.02): no objections subject to a condition to ensures that no development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works as may agreed by the Service and approved by the Planning Authority. • Area Roads Engineer: (response received 10.09.02): no objections subject to conditions requiring a 20 metre visibility splay, specifications of the bellmouth, protection from surface water discharge and provision of 2 parking spaces. • Scottish Environment Protection Agency: (letter received 05.09.02): no objections • Scottish Natural Heritage: (response received 17.9.02): do not object to the proposal in principle, but comment that there are design features which are inappropriate to the vernacular tradition within this National Scenic Area. In particular it is considered that there is too much glazing on the south side of the building and that the use of wooden panelling on the walls is inappropriate • Public Protection: (response received 12.09.02) stating no observations.
(iii) Publicity
The proposal was advertised by means of a press advertisement and a notice on site as a proposal affecting the setting of a listed building. The period for representations expires on the 20.09.02 and to date three letters have been received; one from Patricia Doughty and a separate letter from Gordon Doughty (both on the 12.09.02 and both residents of 4 Ardnaw, Kilmory Knap) and one from Dr A Tolmie of 2 Ardnaw, Kilmory Knapp. The points raised and my comments are as follows :
• The Weaver’s House ruin in close proximity to Kilmory Chapel is especially significant in providing an historical setting for the chapel – and the ruin and this benefit would be lost through its demolition to allow this proposal to proceed. The loss of other ruins in the last decade increases the significance of this asset to the setting of the chapel. The Weaver’s House ruin provides the most beautiful part of the landscape within the setting of the chapel and cross. • This redevelopment, even with use of traditional materials, would be damaging to the setting of the and would impact on the historical, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects of Scotland’s heritage. • The proposal would contribute to incongruously enclosing the chapel within a modern housing complex.The collective combination of this proposal in conjunction with those developments already built would destroy the character of the earlier settlement and landscape. F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 66
• The proposal cannot be justified against existing Development Plan policy or the new emerging Structure Plan policy, all of which seek to protect the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments. • The impact of the proposal would adversely affect tourism in this National Scenic Area. • Trees (recently felled) can no longer mitigate the impact of development from the beach. • The extensive glazing toward the shore, could lead to unacceptable lighting at night. • The modern style of the shoreward side of the building would be seen by neighbours and is objectionable. Neighbouring property was purchase on the understanding that no further development would be allowed.The development would contribute to loss of view. • Concerns are expressed about the proposed height of the building in relation to the chapel and the possibility that the proximity of the building to the adjacent road might lead to access being impeded. It is suggested that these could be overcome by building more into the slope and away from the chapel.
It is agreed that the proposal conflicts with existing and emergent development plan policy in respect of safeguarding historic buildings and their settings, and that the cumulative impact an additional new building will adversely affect the surroundings of the chapel. The impact upon residential amenity of adjoining property is not considered of such magnitude to warrant a reason for refusal on these grounds.
C. ASSESSMENT
The proposal is for the development of a detached dwelling house, some 56 metres in length and 11 metres in width, partly sitting on the remains of a former building which has a footprint 30 metres long and 11 metres wide. Apart from a few courses of stonework for most of the footprint, only one gable wall remains. The ruin is close to but off-set from the Chapel. The chapel, St. Maelrubha’s Chapel (generally referred to as Kilmory Chapel) and MacMillan’s Cross are both Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Grade B Listed Buildings. The new dwellinghouse – designed as two interlinked rectangular units in stone/timber/slate – brings the development closer to both the chapel and the cross. The main part of the dwelling would be directly opposite the chapel, some 11 metres from its walled curtilage, separated only by the narrow single track road, and 33 metres from the chapel building itself.
Whilst the design of the dwelling which faces the chapel, simply presents plain wall, punctuated with only with seven very small windows (each 0.6 metre square), it still presents an insensitively domineering structure This, it is considered, would produce a claustrophobic effect in respect of the chapel, and would adversely affecting the quality of the surroundings of the protected site when experienced by visitors waking around it.
The ambience and character currently enjoyed by visitors to the chapel, is produced not only by the chapel building itself, but also by its relationship to existing ruins – which establishes its historic setting – and also to the surrounding and much wider open rural landscape, including the inter visibility between it and the shore. This would all be adversely affected by this new building because of its position, height and mass, and by the loss of the ruin in the re-development of the site.
It is acknowledged, through the existence of various ruins, that the original settlement would have had numerous small croft houses and byres, but because of their size, position, and inherent built form and age, they would not have had the damaging visual implications that this re-development would present.
The proposal has a simple form on the elevation that presents itself to the chapel, in order to minimise the way in which it competes for attention with the chapel, but a consequence of this is that the shoreward side of the building has to have significant quantities of glazing. The overall design would be acceptable in many rural locations, but in this context and in such close proximity to these two scheduled monuments, and given the inter visibility between this dwelling, the chapel and its setting from the shoreward side, the design and character of the development is damaging.
Furthermore, and perhaps of greatest significance, is the adverse effect of the proposal upon the setting of the chapel and the cross, as these scheduled ancient monuments and grade B Listed Buildings, are approached on the road from the north. From this location, the chapel and cross are overlooked from an elevated position, and viewed within the context of this ancient settlement, with its ruins, and within an overall open crofting type landscape. The whole setting has to some extent already been impinged upon by two new dwellings, but the area still has character and the chapel and cross benefits from it. If this proposal were allowed, it would, because of the location of the proposal, produce a cramping effect upon the setting of the chapel from this significant viewpoint. In addition, the
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 67
inter- relationship between this proposed development, the chapel, and the other existing would produce a cluttered group of buildings, to the detriment of the setting of the two scheduled ancient monuments.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNINGWEAVERSCOTTAGEKNAPDALE0201452WRDH14.09.0200.DOC
Page 68 Page 69
Page 70 Page 71
DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. A McKinlay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 5th September 2002 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 2nd October 2002
12th September 2002
Reference Number: 02/01528/COU Applicants Name: Hamish Dunlop Application Type: Change of use Application Description: Change of use of shop (class 1) to shop and amusement centre (sui generis) Location: 17 Longrow South, Campbeltown
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Change of use of class 1 retail shop to mixed use of retail shop and amusement centre.
(B) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that:
1) Planning permission be refused for the reason given on the following page but one;
2) The Head of Development & Building Control be authorised to issue the decision notice following . the expiry of the publicity period (4.9.02), provided that no further material representations are received in the interim.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS A retrospective planning application for the sole use of this shop as an amusement centre was refused in March 2002. A subsequent planning and enforcement notice appeal was dismissed in August 2002, the Reporter concluding that the development was contrary to retail policy and detrimental to residential amenity.
This proposal seeks to address those concerns by retaining a retail element to the business, reducing the number of amusement machines, and restricting opening hours to prevent evening use of the premises. Although these amendments partly overcome the reasons for the Reporter dismissing the appeal, I consider that the intended amusement element (8 machines) remains significant, despite the proposed reduction in opening hours. The Reporter’s primary concern was the likely nuisance from persons congregating in the street and acting in an anti-social manner, rather than disturbance from the actual use being carried out within the property. Even with reduced operating hours and less machines, I consider that the use will continue to act as a focal point for the gathering of persons outside the premises which will be to the detriment of the residential amenity of properties above.
I have considered the extent to which the imposition of conditions might render the proposal acceptable. With the imposition of appropriate conditions I consider that the retail policy reason for refusal in the case of the original proposal could now be overcome. However, as the scale of the use is such that the premises will continue to be perceived as an amusement centre, the risk from nuisance being caused as a result of people congregating outside the building remains, the conduct of which cannot be regulated by way of planning conditions. I have therefore concluded that the proposal remains contrary to Development Plan policy in terms of it acting as a ‘bad neighbour’ with adverse implications for residential amenity.
(D) CONCLUSION
I consider that the potential for nuisance remains with this amended proposal, and recommend that permission be refused accordingly.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING17LONGROW0201528WR17.9.0200.DOC
Page 72
Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control
Author: Richard Kerr – 01546 604080
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING17LONGROW0201528WR17.9.0200.DOC
Page 73
REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01226/COU
1. The proposal relates to ground floor retail premises with living accommodation immediately above and adjacent, where permission has previously been refused, and an appeal recently dismissed, for the sole use of the premises as an amusement centre. Although this amended application partly addresses the shortcomings associated with the dismissal of that appeal, in that the intended number of amusement machines are to be reduced, and the operating hours curtailed; the scale of the amusement centre element of this proposed mixed use remains significant, and the premises are likely to remain an attraction for persons to congregate both in and around, with the attendant risk of nuisance being caused to residents above. The avoidance of such nuisance was fundamental to the Reporter’s decision to dismiss the appeal for the sole use of the premises as an amusement centre, and it is not considered that the amended proposal wholly overcomes those concerns. The proposal would therefore remain a potential ‘bad neighbour’ use within a mixed residential/commercial area, to the detriment of residential amenity, by virtue of nuisance arising from noise, activity and anti-social behaviour associated with the congregation of persons outside the premises, contrary to Policy POL COM 6 of the Kintyre Local Plan, and to the advice given in National Planning Policy Guidance Note 8.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING17LONGROW0201528WR17.9.0200.DOC
Page 74
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/01226/COU
A. POLICY OVERVIEW
Kintyre Local Plan (1984)
POL COM (7) - Seeks to oppose office type ground floor uses which would result in a loss of retail floorspace on Lower Main Street and Longrow South. Within this area non-retail uses will normally be permitted on upper floors.
POL COM (6) - Seeks to resist ‘bad neighbour’ uses where they are considered to have an unacceptable effect upon residential amenity.
POL BE (3) – Seeks to prevent developments, including changes of use, which would have adverse effects upon the character or appearance of conservation areas.
NPPG 8 (Town Centres and Retailing) – suggests that amusement centres are most appropriately located in secondary shopping areas or areas of mixed commercial development. It suggests that they may be inappropriate below flatted residential property if they might give rise to nuisance or disturbance to residents beyond that already generated in the area. In granting consents, careful consideration should be given to the imposition of conditions which might mitigate such adverse impacts. It is pointed out that licensing forms part of a separate control regime and does not confer any particular status in terms of planning legislation.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Site History
Use of retail shop as amusement centre (retrospective) – refused 6.3.02 (02/00144/COU) Enforcement notice served 13.3.02 (02/00038/ENFOTH). Appeals against refusal of permission and the enforcement notice dismissed 1.8.02 Effective date of enforcement notice (as varied on appeal) - 13th September 2002.
(ii) Consultations
Head of Public Protection (memo dated 13.9.02) – objects to the application on the grounds that the amended proposal is unlikely to materially reduce the impact of persons congregating and causing noise nuisance outside the premises, and would adversely affect residential property.
(iii) Publicity
The application was advertised in the local newspaper on 13th September 2002. The period for representations is due to expire on the 4th October 2002. (N.B: as this is two days after the Committee meeting the issuing of a decision will require to be delegated to the Head of Development & Building Control following the expiry of this period, provided that no further material representations are received in the interim which would warrant reconsideration by Members). Two letters of objection have been received from H MacDonald, Flat 1 19 Longrow South (dated 1.9.02 & 6.9.02). The grounds of objection may be summarised as follows:
• The proposal is still an amusement centre disguised as a shop;
• The use is contrary to development plan policy and the findings of the Reporter in the case of the previous appeal;
• The reduction in evening hours is unlikely to improve the situation as most nuisance is already caused by pre pub-age teenagers.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING17LONGROW0201528WR17.9.0200.DOC
Page 75
C. ASSESSMENT
This application must be considered in the light of development plan policy and other material considerations, including, inter alia, the views expressed by third parties, and the previous appeal decision insofar as it remains relevant to the current amended proposal.
Members may recall that in the case of the original application I recommended approval subject to conditions, on the grounds that this very small unit only makes a limited contribution to the retail function of the town centre, that the use of machines had been demonstrated not to be audible in the flats above, and that this town centre location is already subject to traffic noise and street activity. In the event, Members concluded that on balance that the use of the premises was unacceptable and permission was refused.
On appeal, the Reporter concluded as follows. Firstly, that the sole use of the premises as an amusement centre would cause nuisance to residents by acting as a focus for persons congregating in the street, and secondly, that the loss of a unit to a non-retail use within the defined retail core was not justified by exceptional circumstances. He therefore found the proposals contrary to Local Plan Policies COM 6 and COM 7. He went on to conclude that the proposal did not adversely affect the conservation area in terms of Policy BE 3.
This amended proposal has been submitted in a bid to overcome those reasons for the dismissal of that appeal for the sole use of the premises as an amusement centre. The applicant now intends:
• To utilise part of the premises as a retail shop for the sale of computer games equipment and software (currently retailed from his electronics shop on the other side of the street); • To limit the opening hours so that the premises do not stay open after 7pm (previously the premises had been open as an amusement centre until 9pm); • To reduce the number of amusement machines from 18 to 8.
It is now necessary for Members to consider the extent to which these amendments overcome the stated reasons for refusal of the original application, having regard additionally to the Reporter’s findings on appeal.
In my view, the impact of the proposal on the conservation area remains as before; i.e. neutral.
As far as retail policy is concerned, this mixed use will involve an element of retailing and a reduction of the proportion of the premises devoted to amusement machines. It would be possible to organise the layout of the premises in such a way as to present the appearance of a retail shop from the street. (It is common practice for amusement centres in town centre shopping areas to be conditioned to require a retail element, and the maintenance of a shop window display of retail goods, specifically for this purpose). In this case, as submitted, the proposal indicates retail goods interspersed with the location of machines rather than segregation of the two uses, and the main shop window is to remain ‘painted out’ in its current state. These matters could, however, be addressed by way of appropriate conditions to secure the appearance of normal retail premises.
As far as nuisance to residents is concerned, my view remains as before, that the operation of machines and activity within the premises is unlikely to significantly affect residents above, particularly if opening hours were to be restricted by condition to prevent evening use when traffic and other ambient noise levels are lower, and when residents can be expected to be at home and more sensitive to any noise which is audible.
As far as disturbance occasioned by activity outside the premises is concerned, it is a fact that the Reporter in his findings on the appeal gave more credence to this as an issue, than the Head of Public Protection and I had done so in our recommendations to Members. He considered that the focal point of an amusement centre use would encourage persons to ‘hang around’ in the street outside the premises, with the attendant risk of nuisance to residents from noise and anti-social behaviour. With that conclusion in mind as a material consideration with a bearing upon the acceptability of the current proposal, I do not consider that a reduction of the number of machines from 18 to 8 will significantly reduce the attractiveness of the premises as a destination for young
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING17LONGROW0201528WR17.9.0200.DOC
Page 76
people. Only in the eventuality where amusement machines were genuinely incidental to another predominant use, might I consider this to be the case. Even with a reduced number of machines, the premises will continue to be perceived as an amusement centre. Indeed with a reduced number of opportunities for persons to play simultaneously, the potential may exist for greater numbers of persons to congregate inside and outside the premises, whilst waiting for machines to become available.
The proposed closing time of 7pm will, however, have some beneficial effect in reducing the potential for nuisance in the more sensitive evening hours. Notwithstanding this benefit, I have concluded that the scale of the amusement centre use remains such that it will continue to have adverse implications for the residential amenity of flats above, by way of potential nuisance from the behaviour of persons outside the premises attracted to that location by the presence of a use of this nature; the conduct of which, as the Reporter pointed out, cannot be controlled by the imposition of planning conditions. I do not consider that the revised proposal has wholly overcome the Reporter’s stated reasons for dismissal of the previous appeal in terms of nuisance to residents, insofar as they remain relevant to the circumstances of this amended application.
Consequently, notwithstanding my recommendation in respect of the original application, having had regard to the Reporter’s conclusions as a material consideration in the assessment of this proposal, and despite those aspects which represent an improvement upon the circumstances of the appeal proposal, I am recommending that this application should be refused.
F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\6\7\3\AI00005376\PLANNING17LONGROW0201528WR17.9.0200.DOC
Page 77
Page 78 Page 79 Argyll and Bute Council Agenda Item 6 Development and Environment 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
0201441GDCO Forest Enterprise 16/08/2002 04/09/2002 NOO Land South West Of Grogport House Carradale Campbeltown Argyll Formation of forestry access to B842 at Grogport
0201435NMA Dunaverty Golf Club 13/08/2002 26/08/2002 NOO Dunaverty Golf Club Southend Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6RW
Non-material amendment to Planning Consent Ref:99/00677/DET 0201417NMA Lomond And Argyll Primary Care NHS Trust 08/08/2002 22/08/2002 PER The Manse Campbeltown Road Tarbert Argyll PA29 6TY
Demolition of existing manse and garage and erection of a primary care centre - amendment to roof tile 0201408COU Minot Scottish Property Trust 12/08/2002 04/09/2002 PER Killean Dairy House Tayinloan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XF
Refurbishment of existing dwelling COU of dairy room to form domestic accomodation 0201396PNELE Scottish & Southern Energy Group 07/08/2002 26/08/2002 NOO South Crubasdale, Muasdale Overhead Line Kintyre
Installation of 11kv line
0201395PNAG Mr C.Nisbet 20/08/2002 26/08/2002 NOO Mulldubh Isle Of Colonsay PA61 7YR
Erection of steel framed agricultural shed
0201382COU Mr & Mrs J.Bridges & Mr & Mrs M.Hearne 05/08/2002 30/08/2002 PER Crumble Cottage Isle Of Colonsay PA61 7YT
Proposed renovation and extension to cottage/haystore and conversion of cowshed to form new dwellings 0201361TELNO Vodafone Limited 31/07/2002 23/08/2002 NOO Beinn Nan Gudairean Overhead Line Isle Of Colonsay
Installation of antennae @ 9m on existing mast and installation of ancillary base station equipment 0201332PNAG John MacKellar 23/07/2002 23/08/2002 PRE Land North Of Auchnaclach Port Askaig Isle Of Islay
Erection of agricultural building
PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED
12 September 2002 Page 1 of 4 Page 80 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment 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
0201326DET Dr & Mrs Maitland 25/07/2002 23/08/2002 PER Plot 1 Land North East Of The Manse Whitehouse Tarbert Argyll
Erection of dwelling and formation of vehicular access
0201325NMA Mr & Mrs D. Taylor 19/07/2002 14/08/2002 PER West Machrimore Southend Campbeltown Argyll
Non-material amendment to Planning Consent Ref: 00/00820/COU - COU of steading to dwelling 0201323NMA Mr John & Mrs Ann Carter 23/07/2002 14/08/2002 PRE Land North East Of The Manse Whitehouse Tarbert Argyll
Non-material amendment to Planning Consent Ref: 02/00807/DET - erection of dwelling 0201321NMA Mr & Mrs Dott 24/07/2002 14/08/2002 PER 12 Sealand Peninver Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QP
Non-material amendment to Planning Consent Ref: 02/00848/DET - erection of rear and side extension to dwelling 0201319NMA Mr & Mrs McEwan 24/07/2002 14/08/2002 PRE Land To North Of Abbotsford Bruichladdich Isle Of Islay
Non-material amendment to planning consent ref: 02/00600/DET - erection of a dwelling 0201315DET Kenneth Semple 16/07/2002 15/08/2002 PER Carradale Post Office Carradale Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QG
Extension and re-roofing of existing shop
0201308PNAG Mark T Piper 05/08/2002 04/09/2002 PER Gearach Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay PA48 7UB
Erection of agricultural building
0201285DET Mr & Mrs P.Cupples 12/07/2002 14/08/2002 PER 5A Wilson Road Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8TR
Extension to dwelling house
0201259NMA West Of Scotland Water 18/07/2002 14/08/2002 PER Land Adjacent Triangle Wood Port Righ Carradale Campbeltown Argyll Non-material amendment to Planning Consent ref: 02/00210/DET - amended scheme
PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED
12 September 2002 Page 2 of 4 Page 81 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment 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
0201239DET Mr And Mrs D Gee 18/07/2002 09/08/2002 PER Schoolhouse Ardbeg Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7EA
Erection of extension to provide additional living accommodation
0201232DET Mr And Mrs Ian McKendrick 08/07/2002 21/08/2002 PER High Dalrioch Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6PH
Alteration and extension to dwellinghouse and installation of septic tank 0201227DET James Muir 24/07/2002 22/08/2002 PER 160 Ralston Road Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6LQ
Erection of entrance porch
0201218DET Mr & Mrs K. Jones 04/07/2002 20/08/2002 PER Land South West Of Crubasdale Lodge Muasdale Tarbert Argyll
Erection of dwelling and installation of septic tank and soakaway
0201211DET Cameron McDougall 03/07/2002 09/08/2002 PER Dunara West Bank Road Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll PA30 8HG Erection of summerhouse within garden of existing flatted property 0201204DET Mr & Mrs Duncan Johnstone 17/06/2002 15/08/2002 PER Land North Of Avinagillan Tarbert Argyll
Formation of new vehicular access
0201179DET Vestas - Celtic Wind Technology 26/07/2002 26/08/2002 PER Land North East Of Gartgunnel Kilkenzie Campbeltown Argyll
Alterations to approved windfarm layout to allow for reduction of turbines to 15 no.; relocation of turbines 3 & 9; deletion of 0201161DET BT Plc 05/08/2002 06/09/2002 PER Land South Of Beinn Nan Gudairean Scalasaig Isle Of Colonsay
Erection of BT core radio station with 23m tower, GRP cabin and aerial. 0201160COU Mrs Patricia Williams 03/07/2002 12/08/2002 PER 73 Longrow Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6ER
Alteration and change of use of office to form residential flat including erection of rear glazed entrance porch.
PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED
12 September 2002 Page 3 of 4 Page 82 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment 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
0201157DET Scottish & Southern Energy 17/07/2002 13/08/2002 PER Claonaig Radio Station Skipness Tarbert Argyll
Erection of new 36.5 m mast and equipment cabin
0201143OUT Richard James Kay 05/07/2002 29/08/2002 PER Smerby Hill, Campbeltown Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QW
Site for the erection of a dwellinghouse
0201128DET Mr And Mrs McNicoll 01/06/2002 12/08/2002 PER Land South Of Mulldubh Isle Of Colonsay
Erection of dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of access 0201127LIB Highland Parish Church 12/06/2002 22/08/2002 PER Highland Church Hall Kirk Street Campbeltown Argyll
Structural strengthening of outside walls including wall ties
0200811DET Mr & Mrs A & R Whyte 07/05/2002 14/08/2002 PER Glenmachrie Cottage Port Ellen Isle Of Islay
Renovation and extension of existing dwellinghouse.
0200768LIB The Scottish Minot Trust 25/06/2002 22/08/2002 PER Killean House Tayinloan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XF
Formation of new window.
0200755DET Mr And Mrs A And R Whyte 07/05/2002 14/08/2002 PER Glenmachrie Farm Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7AW
Erection of private laundry and cold store building
0200743VARC Michael Stewart 26/04/2002 23/08/2002 PER The Bothy Fernfield, Crinan Crinan Lochgilphead Argyll
Application to vary condition 2 relative to planning consent Ref. 97/01097/DET 0200193DET Islay Estates Co 06/02/2002 02/09/2002 PER Land North Of Bridgend Hotel Bridgend Isle Of Islay
Demolition of ruin and erection of 4 two storey holiday letting cottages, installation of septic tank and provision of rear
PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED
12 September 2002 Page 4 of 4 Page 83 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISIO AND SITE ADDRESS DATE N
0000899MTP Inverloch Cheese Company 30/06/2000 15/08/200 09/09/2002 WARAPP Alterations and extension to existing cheese factory
Inverloch Cheese Co 22 Kirk Street Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6BL 0200365ERD Mr And Mrs Ferrier 01/03/2002 20/03/200 27/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of dwellinghouse and garage (foundations, substructure and drainage stages only) Newstead Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8PJ
0200366EXT Colonsay Hotel 01/03/2002 28/03/200 28/08/2002 WARAPP Extension to hotel to form function room and glazed link
Colonsay Hotel Scalasaig Isle Of Colonsay PA61 7YP
0200472ERC Mr And Mrs Reynolds 20/03/2002 25/03/200 20/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of oil tank
Honeysuckle Cottage Slockavullin Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll 0200483ERC Mr I A Milton 20/03/2002 25/03/200 20/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of oil tank
Achanduin Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8QN
0200569ERC Paul Adam William Sloan 04/04/2002 15/07/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of replacement storage building
Lochview Whitehouse Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XR
0200822MTP Mr And Mrs A And R Whyte 20/05/2002 28/05/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
Glenmachrie Farm Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7AW
0200836ERC Fyne Homes Ltd 22/05/2002 11/06/200 11/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of respite home
Land North Of Whitegates Court MacEwan Road Lochgilphead Argyll 0200894ALT Hans & Judy Unkles 05/06/2002 24/06/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Alteration and extension
Sandisland Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8PN
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 12 September 2002 Page 1 of 4 Page 84 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISIO AND SITE ADDRESS DATE N
0200953ERD Mr & Mrs J.Cairns 12/06/2002 08/07/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of single storey dwelling house
Caladh-Na-Sith Ford Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RH
0200956AO Mr And Mrs David McCormick 13/06/2002 18/06/200 21/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of dwellinghouse - final stages
Plot 2, The Moy Campbeltown Argyll
0201012ERC Hector Walker 21/06/2002 24/07/200 27/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of conservatory
48 Argyll Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8NE
0201164MTP John Carter 15/07/2002 23/07/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Installation of shared wastewater and surface water drainage for both plots 1 and 2 and access to plot 2 Land North East Of The Manse Whitehouse Tarbert Argyll
0201171ALT Director Of Housing And Social Work 15/07/2002 19/07/200 16/08/2002 WARAPP Alterations to office
Dalriada House 1-7 Lochnell Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8ST 0201173ERD M And K MacLeod Ltd 15/07/2002 06/08/200 15/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of dwellinghouse
Plot 1 1 Fernoch Crescent Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8AE
0201216ALT Mr And Mrs Stuart Ford 19/07/2002 07/08/200 16/08/2002 WARAPP Alteration to dwelling, formation of mid floor and stair to serve first floor store Luib Cottage Clachan Tarbert Argyll PA29 6XL
0201219EXT Mr And Mrs S Dott 24/07/2002 06/08/200 27/08/2002 WARAPP Extension to dwellinghouse and installation of oil storage tank and external oil fired boiler. 12 Sealand Peninver Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QP
0201226ALT Mrs McEwan 22/07/2002 01/08/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Provision of shower for disabled use
64 Main Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay PA48 7TX
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 12 September 2002 Page 2 of 4 Page 85 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISIO AND SITE ADDRESS DATE N
0201248ERC Mr Christie 26/07/2002 26/08/200 27/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of oil tank
Craig-Na-Barnach Furnace Inveraray Argyll PA32 8XU
0201254EXT Mr And Mrs Peter Cupples 29/07/2002 20/08/200 27/08/2002 WARAPP Extension to dwellinghouse
5A Wilson Road Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8TR
0201265ALT Miss Margaret Barriskell 31/07/2002 27/08/200 27/08/2002 WARAPP Alteration to flat
14 Poltalloch Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8LP
0201273ERC John Angus Marquia MacPhee 04/08/2002 20/08/200 20/08/2002 WARAPP Erection of oil tank
Glen Appin 2 Dun Mor Avenue Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8TP 0201283ERC A Smith 02/08/2002 09/08/200 10/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of agricultural building
Drumore Farm Tarbert Road Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6NW
0201285AO T McCardel And S.L. Jenson 02/08/2002 28/08/200 10/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of dwellinghouse - amendment
Land North West Of Craignish Primary School Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll 0201308ERC Shanks Waste Services 08/08/2002 13/08/200 11/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of steel framed building to house composting facility - foundations, underbuilding and underground drainage system Lingerton Waste Disposal Site Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll
0201365ALT Allan Heads 19/08/2002 21/08/200 22/08/2002 WARAPP Change of roof covering on dwellinghouse
13 Mansefield Road Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7BH
0201368ERC Alasdair Patrick Chrystal 19/08/2002 30/08/200 10/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of oil tank
3 Manse Crescent Inveraray Argyll PA32 8YY
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 12 September 2002 Page 3 of 4 Page 86 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISIO AND SITE ADDRESS DATE N
0201385ERC Elizabeth Dawson 23/08/2002 02/09/200 05/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of LPG tank
6 Wallace Cottages Southend Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6RX
0201386AO Mr And Mrs K Abendroth 23/08/2002 02/09/200 05/09/2002 WARAPP Extension to kennels - amended proposal
Narrowfield Kennels Tomaig Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6PE
0201387AO Lomond And Argyll Primary Care NHS Trust 23/08/2002 02/09/200 02/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of access ramp - amended proposal
Dental Surgery Lorne Street Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8LU
0201397ALT N Johnstone 26/08/2002 27/08/200 28/08/2002 WARAPP Retrospective Building Warrant for alterations to ground floor layout and installation of shower 9 Mansefield Terrace Port Ellen Isle Of Islay PA42 7BL
0201439AO Mr William Hughes 03/09/2002 04/09/200 05/09/2002 WARAPP Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse - amended proposal
Bodega 11 Knockscalbert Way Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6TA
0201443ERC David Pearson 03/09/2002 04/09/200 05/09/2002 WARAPP Erection of oil tank
Bridgend Cottage Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6PH
0201463AO Trustees Of The Templars Hall 05/09/2002 11/09/200 11/09/2002 WARAPP Demolition of existing hall and erection of new hall - amended proposal Templers Hall Harbour Street Tarbert Argyll
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 12 September 2002 Page 4 of 4 Page 87 Agenda Item 8
Page 88 Page 89
Page 90 Page 91
Page 92 Page 93
Page 94 Page 95 Agenda Item 9
KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP held in TOWN HALL, CAMPBELTOWN on MONDAY 26 AUGUST 2002 at 10.00 a.m.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Paul Alison, Anne Howell, Maureen Macmillan, Rhoda Grant, Peter Peacock, Jamie McGrigor, Ivor Roberston, Tom Pedersen, Derrick Lang, George Lyon, Councillor Donald Kelly, Laurie Sinclair, Councillor Alasdair Blair, Susan Paterson, Shona Anderson, Murdina McDonald and Dave Petrie.
2. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2002 were approved.
A letter has been received from BEAR Scotland regarding the A83 at Erines, Tarbert informing the group that Mr. Ronnie MacKenzie at their Killin Office is the route manager for the A83 and any correspondence should be addressed to him. It was agreed that a letter should be written to BEAR enquiring where the Erines job is on the programme and how expenditure on roads maintenance is determined.
The issue of Japanese Knotweed was discussed and it was agreed to ask the Area Committee to ask S.P.C. to take this up.
3. A.I.E.
No report available.
4.1 AIRSHOW
A letter concerning the Airshow from Steven Dott of AIE to Jim Martin was circulated. Jim Martin continues to work on the project but a big problem is sponsorship and also getting new people involved in the Airshow group, because he considers that the Airshow needs to rely on the gate money to make up the deficit in potential grant funding. Based on attendance at the last Airshow, this seems reasonable. It was agreed to write to A.I.E. about this.
The Group decided it would be beneficial to obtain the figures for the year 2000 Airshow from the Museum of Flight. A letter from Shona Anderson was read to the Group advising that Shona was now employed at Vestas Celtic and would be unable to attend future meetings but was still continuing to work on the Airshow group.
4.2 LOGANAIR
Figures circulated to group. It was decided to write to Loganair to ask for clarification on punctuality percentage.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\9\2\AI00005295\MinutesofKintyreInitiativeWorkingGroup26August200200.doc 1 of 5 Page 96
4.3 HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIRPORTS LTD.
Monthly figures attached to this minute.
The P.S.O. was discussed and it was agreed that Paul and Deirdre did an excellent job on the paper.
4.4 DEFENCE ESTATES
No report available.
5. FERRY ISSUES
Campbeltown – Ballycastle ferry service. A letter was circulated about the service from Andrew Maclaren of the Scottish Executive transport division. It was agreed to write concerning the last paragraph about what other options are available and invite Mr Maclaren to come and talk to a future meeting of the group. The timescales were discussed again and it was agreed to enquire who is doing the consultation referred to in the letter. It was agreed to ask the MSPs to pursue this letter and the issues it raises.
Tarbert- Portavadie service The group was informed that the carrying figures are now only available annually and that we have requested to receive them.
Consultation Document on ferry services An appropriate response will be sent from the group taking into account the following matters:- Concessionary fares were discussed and it was agreed that these should be available for mainland routes to all with concessionary passes.
It was decided that the Scottish Executive should intervene after 24 hours if there was to be a failure in service and not 7 days as suggested in the document.
Who is the regulator – This needs to be clarified. The group did not think that this burden should be placed on civil servants.
The timing of the Tarbert to Portavadie Ferry was raised and this service should be altered by 15 minutes to suit passengers from the Islay ferry that arrives at 12.15pm.
A later ferry to Gigha on a Friday was discussed to help with weekend tourism.
Councillor McKinlay advised that the 7.15 a.m. Campbeltown to Glasgow bus did not get you to Kennacraig in time to catch the tour on a Wednesday for Islay and Colonsay.
The facilities at piers were raised and it would be beneficial to have a telephone at Portavadie and also waiting areas and toilet facilities at each pier.
6. FARMING ISSUES
Ian Fawcett spoke on his report on silage and intimated that there is a scheme running at a small cost. Ian Fawcett to advise the N.F.U on Landfill Tax . Jim Martin advised the group that at present a man from Dumfries travels to the Campbeltown area to individual farms to collect silage wraps.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\9\2\AI00005295\MinutesofKintyreInitiativeWorkingGroup26August200200.doc 2 of 5 Page 97
7. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The reply from Ofgem and a letter from Scottish and Southern Energy plc were circulated and it was agreed to write to David Densley to invite him to a future meeting to discuss renewable energy issues.
Ian Fawcett advised that it was agreed at the Area Committee Meeting that there would be a special collection in rural areas on a twice a year basis for residents to dispose of bulky items at no cost. It will be advertised in local shops and a letter sent to all the Community Councils advising of the dates. It was agreed that when the men were doing the uplift compost bins and green sacks should be available to sell to the public.
8. TOURISM No report available.
9. COUNCIL ISSUES
Roads Resurfacing is taking place on the B842 Carradale and also in the Campbeltown area which includes Ralston Road, Limecraigs Road and St. John Street.
The proposed crossing point in Main Street has been scrapped and re-assessment of traffic management scheme is taking place in Campbeltown. This will go out to consultation over the next 2 years.
The pavement between Stewarton and Campbeltown was discussed, as the grass etc. is now so long that people are getting soaked. This is the same on the Campbeltown to Glasgow road.
Jim Martin raised a concern about the fence at the two new houses which have been built at Drumore now causing a blind spot when turning into Gobagrennan Road. This will be checked with planning.
Saddell Abbey
The opening ceremony took place on 23 August. It was agreed that the Saddell Abbey project was a very good facility. There is however no disabled access and the chairman will report back about this.
10. EMPLOYMENT ISSUES Les Howarth advised the Group that to date 112 people are employed at Vestas Celtic. Out of the 112 , 87.5% are local.
Vestas Celtic now requires skilled coded welders, which they may have to bring into the town in which case housing will be required. Keyworkers houses were discussed and it was agreed to write to the Director of Housing and Fyne Homes on this matter. It was also suggested that the some of the former RAF houses could be rented directly to Vestas Celtic, as employers often take this course to ensure they can attract the required employees.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\9\2\AI00005295\MinutesofKintyreInitiativeWorkingGroup26August200200.doc 3 of 5 Page 98
11. EDUCATION ISSUES Susan Paterson had put in her apologies to the meeting but sent an e-mail advising that Argyll College and Community Education are signing people up now to all sorts of classes in South and North Kintyre. Classes will start in mid September.
12. WATER
George McMillan pointed out that drains had been choked in Longrow and Main Street even when it was low tide and Councillor McKinlay enquired as to how we were in this situation after spending all this money on the project. Duncan Aitken from Scottish Water informed the group that the transfer system had not been working properly so a build up of sewage and silt had occurred but Scottish Water were totally committed to getting it sorted. He advised that the wrong pump had been installed but the correct one will be installed now.
The Group learned from Scottish Water that a boiled water sign on Gigha was put up as a precaution. The new membrane plant had had a fault but this has now been rectified and the notice was lifted on Saturday24 August.
13. A.O.B. Maryann Stewart advised that 14 organisations would benefit from the Healthy Living Centre whose bid had been successful and she asked for special thanks to be recorded to John Semple for his work in preparing the bid.
She also informed the group that SCRO checks on people who would be working with children and vulnerable people, would now be done centrally and this would take place in Stirling. It was agreed that not everybody could travel to Stirling for the day and it was suggested that a letter be written to ask if they can come to Kintyre to do the checks.
Swimming Pool
Planning permission for the new community facility should be in by the end of this month with funding applications being lodged then too.
Community Regeneration and Rural Economies leaflets were circulated for information.
Vestas Celtic will be holding an open day on Saturday 28th September 2002 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.
14. DATE OF NEXT MEETING – The date of the next meeting will be held on Monday 28th October at 10 a.m. in the Town Hall, Campbeltown.
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\9\2\AI00005295\MinutesofKintyreInitiativeWorkingGroup26August200200.doc 4 of 5 Page 99
SEDERUNT KINTYRE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP 26 AUGUST 2002 Name Organisation
George McMillan Campbeltown Traders Association Aileen Brown Campbeltown Courier Duncan Aitken Scottish Water D. MacKinnon Argyll and Bute Council Douglas Roberston Tarbert & Skipness Community Council Catherine Ralston S.A.R.I. Alan Reid M.P. John Paton West Kintyre Community Council Ian Macintyre Tarbert Harbour Authority Maryann Stewart A.C.V.S. Paul Convery Argyll and Bute Council Ian Fawcett Argyll and Bute Council Leslie K. Howarth Vestas – Celtic W.T.L. Alastair McKinlay Argyll and Bute Council Martin Gannon Argyll and Bute Council John Semple C.A.K.E. Deirdre Forsyth Argyll and Bute Council Linsay MacPhail Argyll and Bute Council
F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\9\2\AI00005295\MinutesofKintyreInitiativeWorkingGroup26August200200.doc 5 of 5 Page 100 Page 101 Agenda Item 10
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING OF MID ARGYLL PARTNERSHIP Held in DALRIADA HOUSE, LOCHGILPHEAD on TUESDAY 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2002
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Judith Bett, Sue Nash, Maureen Brankin, Neil Wallace, Marion Thompson, Sheila Campbell, Jane Walker, Bruce Campbell and Roy Flatt.
2. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 10 APRIL, 2002
Minutes of meeting held on 10th April, 2002 were approved.
3. MATTERS ARISING
Inveraray
Councillor Hay reported that the car park at Inveraray first stage had been completed and it was hoped that the second stage would be completed within the next few months.
Dog Fouling
It was reported that one person will be reported for prosecution in regard to the exercise to try and decrease the amount of dog fouling in the area.
Housing and Social Work
It was agreed to ask Housing and Social Work for an update in the position in regard to the recruitment of home helps in the Loch Fyneside area.
Public Conveniences Lochgilphead
It was noted that the Police had called a meeting to discuss vandalism at public conveniences. No further action will be taken to await the outcome of this meeting.
4. FOREST ENTERPRISE
Brent Meakin circulated a leaflet on “ landscapes in time “. The idea had been introduced on 16th May and 600 letters and leaflets were mailed. There will be an open day on Saturday 14th September with buses to take visitors round the route of the landscapes and a boat on the canal to give a feeling of what is available. Consultants are currently looking at the project to see whether it is feasible for funding.
Page 1 Page 102
Two field staff are currently being recruited, there having been 60 applicants for the posts, which are the first in the area for some time.
The Inveraray to Southend long distance walk proposal is being considered because it fits in with the core path net work and uses mainly forest tracks.
Vegetation cutting.
Forest Enterprise are working with the Council to cut back on vegetation especially on Lochawe side.
Disability Access Upgrades are required nationally and Brent is piloting a project in the Mid-Argyll area. Various questions were put in regard to Forest Enterprise issues. Alison Hay was pleased that you can cycle from Inveraray to Lochgilphead almost completely without going on the main road. Brent Meakin can print out maps showing the routes which can be taken, and also indicated that forest walks can be used to go from Ardrishaig to Cairnbaan. Brent hopes that a one day motor cycle event and an off road land rover event may be able to take place in isolated parts of the forest that will not cause an noise pollution problem to residents. This is being discussed with members of the autocycle route.
5. COMMUNITY COUNCIL ISSUES
Ardrishaig
Bruce Robertson reported that the replacement of the rail at Seaside Park was now out for tender.
Dunadd
A new community group has been set up in Kilmartin and they hope to purchase the Victoria Hall which is now for sale.
Inveraray
There have been some small problems raised in regards to signage of the new car park. The sewage contract works have now commenced.
Lochgilphead
Mid Argyll Sports Trust is now moving ahead with the planning application having been lodged.
Sheila Houston from ABCUDA spoke to Lochgilphead Community Council and a meeting will shortly be arranged for local Community Councils to discuss the setting up of a Credit Union for Mid-Argyll.
Mid-Argyll Youth Project - extra funding has been obtained so that it can open on another evening. Mid-Argyll Youth Project are considering the erection of youth shelters in the
Page 2 Page 103
town and Lochgilphead Community Council have had an initial discussion with the Police in regard to setting up neighbourhood watch groups
A letter has been sent by Lochgilphead Community Council in support of Kilmartin House keeping the Kilbride Cross. It was agreed to ask for general support from the Community to retain the cross and for it not to be sent to Kelvingrove Museum. It was suggested that contact should be made by individuals who wish to support this project to Kilmartin Museum.
South Knapdale
Lergnahension Bridge replacement contract has been issued and the work should start shortly.
West Loch Fyne
A letter was circulated from West Loch Fyne Community Council about the Minard village footpath. It was noted that the area committee does not have funding for this kind of project but Alison Hay said that she would follow up on this on behalf of the Community Council.
It was reported that an application for funding is being lodged with Crown Estates Commissioners for a slipway at Lochgair through the Scottish Coastal Communities Project.
Furnace
A note from Furnace Community Council was circulated for information and is attached. It was agreed that a letter be sent to Historic Scotland in regard to the deterioration of the Furnace which is now becoming dangerous.
In regard to the A83 trunk road it was reported that local members would be meeting BEAR as soon as possible. It was agreed that they should raise various issues including the dangerous bends outside Furnace and the fact that verges and vegetation are not being cut back to the condition that they used to be. The Chairman of Furnace Community Council suggested that there should be a 15- 20 year plan to realign the road.
In regard to the provision of public toilets in the new proposed village hall, the community council asked if the Council could help with a contribution towards the cost of these. John Downie will pursue this matter with his Department.
A question was raised about the footpath to old Furnace and the requirement to cut back the foliage. Martin Gannon reported that inspections are quarterly and the scrub cutting would take place in October/November. He was asked if he would go and have a look at the situation to see whether urgent action was necessary.
Tarbert & Skipness
The poor condition of the bell mouth of the lane which accesses the church and Fynefish Smokehouse from the A83 was discussed. Funerals use this road and
Page 3 Page 104
the hearse wheels slip on some occasions. It was agreed that this would be raised with BEAR at the meeting referred to above and also that Martin Gannon would have a look to see whether a safety issue was involved in which case he could contact the local business and the landowner of the road.
East Pier. It was asked if the turning point at East Pier could be reinstated as there are congestion problems at that corner. Martin Gannon will check this.
North Knapdale Community Council
The council has now been reformed and had their first meeting last week.
6. ARGYLL COLLEGE
Wilma Campbell was pleased to be present and advised that although she is on the Board of both Highlands & Islands Enterprise and the Chair of Argyll College and a Member of the Acute Hospital Trust she attends this meeting as a local resident with interests in the area. She advised that the Primary Health Care Trust has set up a Mid-Argyll forum involving Community Councils and the Trust in order to discuss health issues.
7. COMMUNITY CARE
Wilma Detmar reported that the Crossroads scheme was successful although there was a lack of care attendants and most recruitment has been by word of mouth. A new stroke club has been set up and the respite house at Whitegates should be on site this month.
8. SCOTTISH WATER
Dave Petrie reported that both Inveraray and Furnace project sewage scheme projects have commenced and there are the usual issues about first time provision of sewage. Scottish Water will write to everyone who could connect to the new pipe once it has been put in and ways of assisting the funding will be considered. Scottish Water do wish to connect everyone who possibly can to the new sewage systems. The Ardrishaig/Lochgilphead scheme is further down the programme and a meeting will not be held with communities until the planning application is ready to be lodged. A concern was raised that people who currently have private systems were going to be forced to improve their facilities within a short period of time. Dave Petrie was of the view that as long as there was no public nuisance then this was unlikely to happen but he obviously could not speak for any new European regulations which may be introduced.
9. ROADS DEPARTMENT
The jet patcher has now been started within the area. Overlay works will commence in October and scrub and drainage work will take place in November/December. A question was raised in regard to surface dressing at Kirnin farm as pot holes are still there. Martin will check to see whether the pot holes were filled before the surface dressing took place.
Page 4 Page 105
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
John Downie reported that anti-vandal units had been installed in the female toilets at Lochgilphead and so far no further vandalism had taken place.
He had advised that the dog fouling publicity had been successful with more and more people buying dog bags, but there is still a problem in Inveraray.
He reported that the village uplift of bulky materials would take place soon on Saturdays. The vehicle will stop off at each village so that residents can bring bulky goods which would be taken away free of charge. This route will be advertised in the paper and leaflets will be available for shops. It was suggested that letters also be sent to Community Councils to advise them beforehand when and where this uplift will take place. This will replace the community skip system which was being abused by commercial operators.
A compost area is being developed at the gardens at Kilmory.
11. EDUCATION
A note was circulated about the Autumn 2002 further education programme and David advised that enrolment fortnight would take place in Argyll College from 9 September to 21 September.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
Mid-Argyll Sports Trust
It was agreed to ask if a representative from Mid-Argyll Sports Trust would wish to come to the meetings. There are links both to Health and to general access to sports facilities which are of interest to all the members.
Future of Mid-Argyll Partnership
Alison Hay asked for views on whether the Mid-Argyll Partnership was achieving anything. Generally members were pleased with the Mid-Argyll Partnership and felt that the exchange of information in itself was extremely useful and that it should continue on the same basis as before. Projects such as the Mid Argyll Youth Project might not have been achieved had it not been for the support of the Mid-Argyll Partnership. It was agreed that it would be useful if written reports could be submitted by all of those who cannot attend a meeting.
13. AREA PLAN
It was agreed to circulate the “partnership” section of the area plan with the minutes for the information of members.
14. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will take place on the 5th November, 2002, at 11.00 a.m. in Dalriada House, Lochgilphead.
Page 5 Page 106
`
SEDURUNT SHEET
Mid Argyll Partnership
4 September 2001
Name Organisation
Alison Hay Argyll and Bute Council
Bruce Robertson Argyll and Bute Council
Donnie MacMillan Argyll and Bute Council
John Downie Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Services
David Hewitt Community Education
Marjorie Drysdale North Knapdale Community Centre
James Anderson-Bickley Forest Enterprise and Brent Meakin
Eric Box Lochgilphead Community Council
Rita Gatner Argyllshire Advertiser
Betty Rhodick Dunadd Community Council
Mary M. MacGugan West Lochfyne Community Council
Wilma Detmar Resource Centre Carers
Martin Gannon Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Services
Wilma Campbell Highland & Islands Enterprise
Dr Macleod and Alex Furnace Community Council Campbell
Deirdre Forsyth Corporate and legal services
Page 6 Page 107
Page 7 Page 108 Page 109 Agenda Item 11
Page 110 Page 111
Page 112 Page 113
Page 114 Page 115
Page 116 Page 117
Page 118 Page 119 Agenda Item 12
Agenda Item No.
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY EDUCATION AREA COMMITTEE
2 October 2002
EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GRANT SCHEME APPLICATIONS BY VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS FOR VOLUNTARY SECTOR GRANT 2002/2003
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The allocation for Educational Development grants for this financial year for Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay is £25,621.50. with £2500 was carried forward from last financial year. Since the last meeting a grant of £750 has been returned from Lorne and Lowland Church because the planned Summer Club did not take place. The remaining balance for distribution is therefore £2913.50. 2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 The Area Committee is asked to consider the Education Development grant application submitted, to note the levels of funding recommended and to agree the amount of grant to be made.
3. DETAILS OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
3.1 Organisation Total Total Recommendation Project Requested Cost 2002/2003 Ormsary and District £1835.68 £917.84 £900 Youth Club Total £900
3.2 This would leave a balance of £2013.50 for the remainder of this financial year.
3.3 The Summary report form is attached.
4. IMPLICATIONS
Policy: The recommendations within this report reflect the Council’s commitment to the support of work with young people and the support of the voluntary sector in Argyll and Bute.
Financial: Grants awarded will be met from the relevant allocation
Masters/Grants summary Education Page 120
within the education service revenue budget for 2002/2003
Personnel: None
Equal Opportunities: None
Legal: None
Archibald C Morton Director of Education October 2002
For further information please contact: Joseph McGeer, , Head of Revenue Resource and Secondary Education, Argyll House, Alexandra Parade, Dunoon. Telephone: 01369 704000.
Masters/Grants summary Education Page 121
ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS ASSESSMENT FORM
Applicant Ormsary and District Youth Club Scheme: Educational Development :
Project: Ongoing Costs Cost: £1835.68 Requested: £917.84 Recommended £900 Other Funding: Local fundraising
General Criteria - (Key: Y – Yes; N – No; N/A – Not Applicable) SMART Objectives demonstrated Y Constitution/non-profit making status Y checked Applicant’s expertise & resources Y Fundraising/contribution to the project Y adequate for project Work has not started on project Audited Accounts checked Y
Non-political activity Y Bank accounts & reserves checked Y
Volunteer training demonstrated Y Open membership demonstrated Y
Registered under Children Act TBO Sponsorship agreements checked N/A 1989 Project is consistent with Council Y priorities
Project Funding Application within 50% Y Ownership/leasehold checked Y Of total costs Statutory permissions obtained. N/A Provision for on-going running & Y maintenance checked Three written estimates submitted N/A Publicity plans for A&B inclusion Y checked
Additional Information
This grant will be used to assist with the running costs. The Community Education Service will continuously evaluate the progress of this group. This organisation is able to offer young people opportunities to develop their social and personal skills within a safe environment.
Specific Criteria
Promoting social inclusion Developing appropriate learning opportunities Promoting active citizenship Building community capacity
Signed: ______Eileen Wilson______Assessment Officer assessment form 14.02.02 Page 122
assessment form 14.02.02 Agenda Item 14 Page 123
Document is Restricted Page 124 Page 125
Document is Restricted Page 126 Page 127
Document is Restricted Page 128 Page 129
Document is Restricted Page 130 Agenda Item 15 Page 131
Document is Restricted Page 132 Page 133
Document is Restricted Page 134 Agenda Item 16 Page 135
Document is Restricted Page 136 Page 137
Document is Restricted Page 138