DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number - 6 Cowal PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 5th November 2007 Bute and Cowal Area Committee Committee Date - 1st April 2008 ______

Reference Number: 07/01836/DET Applicants Name: Mr S McRoberts Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Demolition of dog grooming parlour (following temporary occupation for 3 years), erection of 3 dwellinghouses, formation of vehicular access, installation of septic tank and ground engineering works. Location: Land to north of Dalinlongart Cottage, Sandbank, Dunoon ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Erection of 3 one-and-a-half-storey dwellinghouses with detached garages; • Formation of single shared vehicular access with individual driveways; • Landscaping, tree planting and boundary treatments within plots and communal open space areas; • Installation of communal septic tank system; • Land raising of application site by approximately 1.0 metre; • Continued use of former dog grooming parlour as residential accommodation (for a temporary period of three years.

(ii) Other specified operations.

• Demolition of dog-grooming parlour; • Connection to public water supply; ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission be Refused for the reasons set out overleaf. ______

(i) Development Plan Context:

In the adopted Cowal Local Plan 1993, the application site is located outwith the settlement of Sandbank, within an area of countryside covered specifically by policies RUR1 and TOUR6. In the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan (June 2006) the application site is located within an area zoned Countryside Around Settlement.

The proposal is considered contrary to the Cowal Local Plan in respect of the erection of three dwellinghouses in an open countryside location that would have an adverse visual impact with no locational or operational justification.

The proposal is contrary to both the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan and Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan since the three dwellinghouses proposed cannot be regarded as appropriate infill, rounding-off or redevelopment in an area of Countryside Around Settlement.

(ii) Representations:

No letters of representation have been received.

(iii) Consideration of the Need for Discretionary or PAN 41 Hearing:

Although the proposal represents a departure from the Development Plan, as no letters of objection have been received, the department would not recommend a Hearing.

(iv) Reasoned Justification for a Departure from the Provisions of the Development Plan.

Not applicable.

(v) Is the Proposal a Schedule 1 or 2 EIA development:

(vi) Does the Council have an interest in the site:

No.

(vii) Need and Reason for Notification to Scottish Ministers.

No, the application is recommended for refusal.

(viii) Has a sustainability Checklist Been Submitted:

Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 25 March 2008

Author: Brian Close Date: 7th March 2008 Reviewing Officer: David Eaglesham Date: 19 th March 2008

NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in Appendix A, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 07/01836/DET

1. Having regard to the location of the application site on undeveloped land outwith the established settlement of Sandbank within an area zoned Countryside Around Settlement (CAS), the siting of three proposed dwellinghouses to extend the linear pattern of existing established dwellings would not complement but be at variance with the existing settlement character. The siting of three dwellinghouses in such a location would result in a development that would be out of context within the immediate surroundings and visually detrimental within Countryside Around Settlement where it is regarded as unacceptable ribbon development and visually dominant in respect of existing dwellings and within the Central and East Cowal Local Scenic Area. Development within the CAS in this instance would be inconsistent with the settlement plan that comprises a small isolated cluster of three dwellinghouses south of the Little River Eachaig. The proposed development could not be regarded as infill, rounding-off or redevelopment since it is not subordinate to the existing buildings and there is no substantial natural feature which could be described as terminating the development. The development would also result in an unacceptable ribbon development which would not only be at variance with the existing settlement character but establish a dangerous precedent for land within this CAS zone on either side of the A815. The redevelopment of the former dog grooming parlour building occupying a small portion of the site would not constitute redevelopment of the overall application site

Additionally, the proposed development involves an element of land raising in order to avoid potential areas of flooding and create a suitable freeboard for the proposed dwellinghouses that would result in poor and unacceptable siting in this particular location. Land raising is not normally encouraged and in this instance would result in an unnatural landform with the proposed development built on an artificial mound that would be incapable of integrating with its rural surroundings.

Accordingly, such a development with its particular siting, layout and scale and unacceptable intensification of the existing small cluster of dwellings would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development and of protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and established settlement pattern within the Countryside Around Settlement. The proposal would therefore be contrary to SPP 3 Planning for Housing; SPP 15 Planning for Rural Development; Policies STRAT SI 1 ‘Sustainable Development’, STRAT DC2 ‘Development Within The Countryside Around Settlements’ and STRAT HO 1 ‘Housing– ‘Development Control Policy’ of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002; Policies RUR 1 ‘Landscape Quality’, HO 5 ‘Private Housing Estate Development’ and BE 9 of the Cowal Local Plan 1993; and Policies LP ENV19 ‘Development Setting, Layout and Design’ and LP HOU 1 ‘General Housing Development’ of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan, all of which presume against the nature of the development proposed.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed dwellinghouses could be adequately served by either the existing mains drainage system or the septic tank system proposed in respect of foul drainage disposal arrangements for the site and in respect of potential discharge to the Little Eachaig River. The lack of precise details in respect of foul drainage is considered contrary to Policy STRAT SI 1 ‘Sustainable Development’ of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002; Policy PU 1 ‘Local Pollution Problems’ of the Cowal Local Plan 1993; and Policies LP SERV 1 ‘Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Systems’ and LP SERV 3 ‘Drainage Impact Assessment’ of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan June 2006, all of which presume against the nature of the development proposed.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 07/01836/DET

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ADVICE

(i) POLICY OVERVIEW AND MATERIAL ADVICE

(a) Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002: The following policies are applicable: STRAT SI 1 ‘Sustainable Development’ includes policies to conserve the built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on built heritage resources; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; and avoid places where there is a significant risk of flooding. STRAT DC 2 ‘Development Within The Countryside Around Settlements’ encourages development which accords with the settlement plan for the area and includes appropriate small scale infill, rounding-off and redevelopment sites. Developments which do not accord with this policy are those which will erode the setting of settlements or result in undesirable forms of ribbon development or settlement coalesence. STRAT DC 10 – ‘Flooding and Land Erosion’ states that development which would be at significant risk of flooding from erosion, or which would increase the risk to other land and property, or occupy the functional flood plain will not be in accord with the Structure Plan. In some places where it is feasible to manage the threat, suitable mitigation or other measures may be possible. STRAT HO1 – ‘Housing – Development Control Policy’ encourages appropriate forms and scales of housing infill, rounding-off and redevelopment where it is consistent with STRAT DC1 -10. The above policies are developed further in the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006.

(b) Cowal Local Plan 1993 (adopted 1995)

The application site is located outwith the settlement boundary of Sandbank, situated within the Central and East Cowal Local Scenic Area covered specifically by Policy POL RUR 1 and TOUR 6 and requires to be assessed against the following criteria: POL RUR 1: ‘Landscape Quality, under Areas of Local Landscape Significance’ states a presumption against prominent or sporadic development that would have an adverse landscape impact except where it is demonstrated that there is justification for the development in terms of its environmental impact; locational/operational need; economic benefit and infrastructure and servicing implications. Policy HO 5 ‘Private Housing Development’ is applicable where the Council will not grant additional planning consents for the development of Greenfield sites for private houses. POL PU 1 ‘Local Pollution Problems’ opposes developments which would exacerbate local pollution problems

In the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan June 2006 the site is located within an area zoned Countryside Around Settlement (CAS), where the following policies are applicable. Policy LP ENV 19 ‘Development Setting, Layout & Design’ sets out the requirements in respect of development setting, layout and design in association with Appendix A of the Plan.

Policy LP HOU1 – ‘General Housing Development’ states a general presumption of favour of housing except where there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. In relation to CAS, there is a presumption against small scale development in open/undeveloped areas, where the presumption in favour or against is based largely on whether the housing development will be consistent with and co-ordinated by the settlement pattern that covers this zone. This translates to support in principle for small scale development on infill, rounding-off, change of use and redevelopment sites, provided they do not result in undesirable forms of settlement coalescence, the extension of the established settlement boundary or ribbon development. Rounding-off development is defined as, “ new development positioned largely between substantial building(s) on one side and a substantial ground or natural feature on the other side and arranged such that the local pattern of development terminates at this point”. Ribbon development is defined as “a line of at least six separate dwellings or other substantial buildings one plot deep back from and with curtilages bordering a road”.

Policy LP SERV 3 ‘Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) ’: The Council will generally require developers to submit a DIA in areas affected by flooding.

Policy LP SERV 8 ‘Flooding and Land Erosion’ comments that development on the functional flood plain will be considered contrary to the objectives of this plan. In exceptional circumstances , where land is required to facilitate key development strategies which come forward through the structure/local plan process, land raising may be acceptable provided effective compensatory flood storage can be demonstrated and the objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive are not compromised in so doing. In all cases where the potential for flooding is highlighted the planning authority will exercise the ‘precautionary principle’.

Policy LP TRAN 4 ‘New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes’ sets out requirements for development in respect of private access regimes. Policy LP SERV 1 ‘Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Systems’ requires connection to the public sewer unless connection is not feasible for technical or economic reasons.

Note (i):The applicable elements of the above Policies have not been objected to or have no unresolved material planning issues and are therefore material planning considerations.

Note (ii):The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

(d) National Guidance

The following advice and guidance from Scottish Government includes:

a) Scottish Planning Policy SPP3 – ‘Planning for Housing’; “Scottish Executive policy is to avoid unnecessarily increasing the number of areas that need artificial protection against flooding. (para 43)…………. The landscape settings of existing towns and villages must be respected, and building types, designs and materials should also respect local architectural styles. Attention should be given not only to the visual impact within a village or town, but also to its appearance from outside, for example from major roads, public transport routes or other vantage points. Care should be taken, particularly in smaller towns and villages, to ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate, and consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of a succession of developments over time (para 45)”. b) Scottish Planning Policy SPP7 – ‘Planning and Flooding’; “New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere. The storage capacity of functional floodplains should be safeguarded, and works to elevate the level of a site by landraising should not lead to a loss of flood water storage capacity……….The Building Standards system complements the planning system. In this context, its role is to protect the ground immediately below and adjoining a building from harmful effects caused by flood water, ground water and existing drains, but the current Technical Standards do not require precautions to be taken to protect the building fabric from flood damage (para 12)”. c) Scottish Planning Policy SPP15 – ‘Planning for Rural Development’;” Fit in the landscape and design will also be important planning considerations. The impact of badly designed and sited houses is often particularly important in rural areas because of their visibility over large distances (para 21)……………….National planning policy and advice emphasises the importance of fit and design of new development in the landscape. (para 27). d) Planning Advice Note 67 – ‘Housing Quality’; Successful places - …a great deal of new housing is in suburban settings; on the edge of settlements; or in rural areas. These places need high standards of design just as much as town and city centres.

e) Planning Advice Note 68 – ‘Design Statements’ ; Local authorities should encourage applicants to consider how increased value, and sustainability, can result from good design. The submission of a design statement allows officials to see the extent of analysis, as well as the quality of thought, time and effort which has been dedicated to developing the scheme…Design is a material consideration in determining planning applications. Councils may refuse an application, and defend their decision at appeal, solely on design grounds. f) Planning Advice Note 69 : Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding’: “Building Standard 3.3 states: Every building must be designed and constructed in such a way that there will not be a threat to the building or the health of the occupants as a result of flooding and the accumulation of ground water……………Ground below and immediately adjoining a building that is liable to accumulate floodwater or ground water requires treatment to be provided against the harmful effects of such water. The ground immediately adjoining a building means the area where any ground water would affect the structural stability of the building. Treatment could include a field drain system (para 58)…………….The potential of garden ground and other open space to become waterlogged or suffer from localised flooding is something to be considered from the earliest stages of site proving (para 64)…………..Landraising is sometimes proposed in order to permanently raise a site above the expected flood levels, using inert and compacted infill material. Under SPP 7 it may be appropriate to raise land above the functional flood plain, or elsewhere to address groundwater problems, poor drainage or other local causes of flooding (para 110)”.

g) ‘A Policy Statement for Scotland - Designing Places’; Good design has always been valued by those who appreciate architecture. Today its value is recognised also as a practical means of achieving a wide range of social,

economic and environmental goals, making places that will be successful and sustainable. At one end of the scale, sensitive siting and design of single houses in the countryside can help support and revitalise rural communities without undermining the area's distinctive qualities… This advice is substantially incorporated in the Council’s adopted and emerging Development Plan policies.

(ii) SITE HISTORY

Retrospective planning permission (ref. 03/00798/COU) was granted on 17 th June 2003 for the retention of a dog-grooming parlour (with ancillary washroom, store, changing room and shower) on land adjacent to 1 Dalinongart Cottage, Sandbank. Access was taken from the A815 subject to the existing access being widened. This business was short-lived and ceased operation within one year. From 2004 this building has been used by the applicant for storage purposes and latterly as unauthorised occasional residential accommodation for the applicant.

(iii) CONSULTATIONS

Area Roads Manager (response received 6th December 2007): No objections subject to conditions regarding submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, sightlines, access design, car parking provision and turning and advisory notes regarding surface water drainage, Construction Consent and Road Opening Permit.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (formal response dated 22 nd November 2007): Insufficient information submitted regarding foul drainage disposal arrangements. While it is proposed to install a communal septic tank discharging to the Little Eachaig River, SEPA comment that there is a general presumption against discharges to the water environment unless it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that a land soakaway option has been investigated but discounted following adequate ground investigations. No such information has been provided. e-mail response dated 10 th January 2008: On the basis of the department’s comments regarding SEPA’s flood map, SEPA now object to the proposal until a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted to the satisfaction of relevant parties including SEPA. (updated comments on flood risk element only dated 5 th February 2008): Following additional information submitted specifically on flood risk, SEPA considers that based on a conservative assessment the site is likely to be at low risk from high tidal levels and from the Little Eachaig River.

Transportation and Infrastructure (response dated 30 th January 2008): Indicate from SEPA Flood Map that part of the site could still be affected and based on the policy that no part of a development should flood (including buildings and gardens) precise details with finished floor levels (FFL’s) will be required to assess whether the proposed dwellinghouses (and their curtilages) would be free from flooding.

Scottish Water (response dated 16th November 2007): No objections in principle and advisory notes regarding access to septic tank by tankers and mains water connections.

(iv) PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS

The proposal was advertised under Section 34 Bad Neighbour advertisement and Article 9 Advertisement published 16 th November 2007 (expiry date 30 th November 2007) and under Potential Departure to policies POL RUR1, HO5 and TOUR6 of the Cowal Local Plan 1993, advertisement published 28 th December 2007 (expiry date 18 th January 2008). No letters of representation have been received.

(v) APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant’s agent has submitted a Design Statement in support of the scheme which includes a Flood Risk Assessment. In terms of design, the agents consider that the proposed development of three dwellinghouses in this location is ‘rounding-off’ by placing the dwellings between the existing buildings and the natural feature of the Little Eachaig River. They also consider that the proposal represents redevelopment of the site as the existing dog- grooming shed will be removed. The rationale behind the design is to create an enclosed group of dwellings off a single shared access to avoid creating the impression of ribbon development. Any land raising to combat potential flooding will be suitably modelled to avoid an unnatural plateau. Even with land raising the dwellings will sit below the level of the adjacent A815. The dwellinghouses are considered to of traditional design with ample plot densities and suitable rural type landscaping and boundary treatments. By request, section drawings have been submitted indicating the land raising element with existing ground levels, finished floor levels and road level.

APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 07/01836/DET

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

In the adopted Cowal Local Plan, the proposal is located within an area of open countryside covered specifically by Policy RUR1 ‘Landscape Quality’, where no locational or operational need has been demonstrated. As the proposed development would be located in an open countryside location that would extend and dominate the existing small cluster of cottages with three larger one-and-a-half storey dwellings, the proposal would have an adverse visual impact and accordingly be contrary to policy RUR1. Policy HO5 ‘Private Housing Estate Development’ specifically seeks to avoid further Greenfield release which by definition would result in an adverse visual impact on land outwith the settlement.

Policies contained in the Structure Plan and Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan allow for appropriate infill, rounding-off and redevelopment within Countryside Around Settlement zones. Given the siting and scale of the three dwellinghouses, that would be larger than the existing cottages and extend the cluster of dwellings in a linear manner, the proposal cannot be regarded as appropriate small scale infill nor can it be regarded as redevelopment as only the site of the dog grooming parlour would be redeveloped as part of the proposal and therefore cannot be regarded as redevelopment or as an exceptional case. As the proposal would result in three dwellinghouses that would be located adjacent to and larger in scale to the existing buildings and the natural termination feature of the Little Eachaig River is not regarded as a prominent end-stop to the development it cannot be regarded as appropriate rounding-off, so the proposed development would result in an undesirable form of ribbon development, contrary to the settlement pattern.

Given that the proposal would result in three dwellinghouses within an open countryside zone with no locational or operational justification, the proposal would be contrary to policy POL RUR 1 and POL HO 5 of the adopted Cowal Local Plan. Since the proposal cannot be regarded as infill, rounding-off or redevelopment within Countryside Around Settlement, it would be contrary to policies STRAT DC2 and HO1 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan and Policy LP HOU 1 of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan .

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

(i) Development Setting The application site is located to the north of Dalinlongart Cottages, near Sandbank and bounded by the A815 to the west, the Little Eachaig River to the north and a low-lying field used for grazing within the applicant’s ownership to the east. Dalinlongart Cottages comprises a detached bungalow and two semi-detached cottages located some 200 metres north of the junction with the B836 Colintraive Road. The northernmost semi-detached dwelling was previously the home of the applicant who operated the former dog-grooming business from a detached timber structure. While this business has ceased, the applicant continues to live in this building and wishes to retain this structure for temporary residential occupation for three years whilst the first dwellinghouse is being constructed, whereupon it would be demolished. This outbuilding and its curtilage do not contribute to the rural settlement character on a site that is effectively the ‘northern gateway’ into Sandbank and Dunoon

(ii) Development Layout Two of the dwellinghouses would be positioned facing the A815 with the northernmost unit gable end-on to the main road. All three dwellinghouses would be similar one-and-a-half storey, traditionally designed buildings with pitched and gabled roofs and traditional dormer features on front and rear elevations. The dwellinghouses would have detached garages located at the end of their individual driveways. The proposed development would be served by a new and improved vehicular access from the A815 into the southern portion of the site that would run parallel to the A815 serving each of the three dwellinghouses.

(iii)Use of former Dog Grooming Parlour as Temporary Residential Accommodation This aspect of the proposal will be addressed in a separate enforcement report.

The proposal must be assessed against the provisions of Policy LP ENV 19 - Development Setting, Layout and Design of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan (June 2006) where a high standard of appropriate design is expected in accordance with the Council’s design principles. Development shall be sited and positioned to pay regard to the context within which it is located. Development layout and density shall effectively integrate with its countryside setting of the development. This is further explored in Appendix A Sustainable Siting and Design Principles where in terms of ‘Design of New Housing in Countryside

Development Zones’, the design and construction of new dwellings within this landscape must respect local identity and the environment and should be designed taking the following advice into account:

• Location – houses must be carefully located within the landscape to complement their surroundings and should make the minimum possible physical impact; The development of a three larger one-and-a-half storey dwellings adjacent to the existing small cluster of single storey dwellings would dominate the existing buildings while producing a linear layout that would result in unacceptable ribbon development adjacent to the A815. The development cannot be regarded as infill, rounding-off or redevelopment and therefore contrary to the settlement pattern.

• Siting – must respect existing landforms and development patterns and the amenity of other dwellings; The development itself requires land raising by approximately 1.0 metre to allow a suitable freeboard from potential flooding of the site. This would result in poor siting in that the three dwellinghouses would occupy an artificial mound that (even with sympathetic modelling and planting) would represent an unnatural feature in the landscape and incapable of integrating with the existing dwellings with additional emphasis on scale of proposed dwellinghouses due to land raising . The siting of the three dwellinghouses will result in unacceptable ribbon development where the buildings would be prominent adjacent to the A815 and dominating the view when approaching Sandbank from the north.

• Principles of Design – High standards of design are expected where scale form, proportions, materials, detailing, colour must all work together to enhance the existing built form and landscape; • Materials and Detailing – materials and detailing should be compatible with the traditions of the area and be sympathetic to the landscape; • Outbuildings – should relate to the main building in form and design and be carefully positioned on the site, relating to the house; In general terms the design of the proposed dwellinghouses are traditional in appearance with appropriate materials. It is however the scale of the three similarly designed dwellinghouses adjacent to the three smaller dwellinghouses (of single storey cottage style) that introduces an unacceptable ribbon effect where none exists at present. While the applicant’s agent has stated that the northernmost dwelling has been turned side- on to create a ‘courtyard’ feel to the development, it is the siting and location of the dwellings and their garages, the spaces between the dwellings and the internal access road and individual driveways all create a development that is both ‘suburban’ in character and of a scale that dominates the existing small cluster of dwellings.

• Landscaping and Boundaries – where privacy and amenity is important, built form should be screened from viewpoints using appropriate native planting. Hard-landscaping should be kept to a minimum. Boundaries will either integrate a site or alienate it; Existing trees and shrubs along the verge of the A815 will be retained with the embankment strip planted up although no details have been submitted in respect of proposed boundary treatments and planting. It is however considered that specific conditions could control landscaping and screening of these sites within their rural context.

• Parking – car parking areas should not be dominant features which are highly visible from access ways or dominate views from within buildings. The three dwellinghouses would be served by a single shared access from the southern end of the site and set back from the A815 by a planted embankment. It is proposed to surface both the shared access and driveway/turning areas in block paviors throughout. As mentioned above, while the dwellinghouses appear ‘traditional’ in design they display ‘suburban’ features where such use of block paviors would only emphasise the development as out of context in its rural surroundings.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy LP ENV 19 of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan (June 2006) in respect of a poorly sited group of dwellinghouses that do not pay due regard to the rural context in which they are located in respect of inappropriately designed dwellinghouses of similar scale and plot development that would dominate the existing cluster of smaller dwellings and by creating unacceptable ribbon development beside the main route into Sandbank/Dunoon.

C. Landscape Character

The character of the surrounding area is typified by small isolated clusters of residential development set on a flat valley floor at the head of the Holy Loch and the mouth of the River Eachaig and Little Eachaig River bounded to the north, south and west by steep rising forested moorland, hills and mountains. On leaving the established settlement boundary that terminates at Sandhaven, isolated and dispersed clusters of residential development are located at Dalinlongart Steadings, within the Ballochyle Estate, at Orchard Park and around

the Cot House Services. The flat land in this area is used for grazing purposes and has high incidences of flooding from the rivers mentioned above. The site itself comprises low-lying poorly drained land that sits well below the level of the A815 with trees and shrubs along its western and northern boundaries.

D. Flooding

Policy STRAT SI 1 Sustainable Development of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 seeks to conserve the built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on built heritage resources, respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements, and avoid places where there is a significant risk of flooding. The application site is located within the western side of a larger grazing field that lies south of the Little Eachaig River and at a lower level of the A815 (between 1-2 metres below) that runs along the western boundary. Information from SEPA’s Indicative Flood Map suggests that the majority of the larger field and the north eastern part of the application site may be affected by flooding from this river (located only 20 metres distant from the application site boundary. A major component of this proposal is to raise the site by approximately 1.0 metre to overcome any potential flooding of the site. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment but has not submitted full details of drainage Impact Assessment in respect of foul drainage from the site and discharge to this watercourse.

Policy LP SERV 8 ‘Flooding and Land Erosion’ Development on the functional flood plain will be considered contrary to the objectives of this plan. In exceptional circumstances, where land is required to facilitate key development strategies which come forward through the structure/local plan process, land raising may be acceptable provided effective compensatory flood storage can be demonstrated and the objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive are not compromised in so doing. In all cases where the potential for flooding is highlighted the planning authority will exercise the ‘precautionary principle’.

The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment concludes “that the application site is not considered to be at significant risk of flooding due to high sea levels, as defined in the framework set out in SPP7. The site lies more than 3.0 metres above the 200-year and 500-year tide levels. Modelling studies conclude that the application site would not be at significant risk from flooding from the Little Eachaig River. The site lies approximately 2.0 metres above the 500-year fluvial flood level. The highest flood levels adjacent to the site were found to arise from a coincident event in which extreme tide levels combine with a fluvial flood. Even under this worst-case scenario flood levels were below the level of the site, the proposed development itself and the existing soakaway.”

Despite part of the site lying within an area likely to flood (source: SEPA’s Flood Map) SEPA have assessed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and consider that the ‘raised’ development is likely to be at low risk from high tidal levels and from the Little Eachaig River. While SEPA note that the site does not appear to be at significant risk from flooding, it is noted that the development involves land-raising by 1.0 metre that would appear to provide a reasonable freeboard. However the responsibility for flood prevention lies with the Council, where comments from the Planning and Infrastructure Team are vital. In terms of acceptability of the freeboard in relation to potential flooding of the site (and its curtilage) and on a field drain on the opposite side of the A815, Planning and Infrastructure have requested detailed sections to prove that the land-raising of the site will be sufficient to provide a suitable freeboard for the buildings and their curtilages (including groundwater issues, soakaways and discharges to the watercourse). The applicant’s agent has submitted section drawings indicating that the entire application site will be raised where finished floor levels sit approximately 1.0 metre above existing ground level.

While SEPA appear to be satisfied that the site would not be at risk from flooding, confirmation is still required from the Planning and Infrastructure Group as to the freeboard levels. If acceptable, the proposed development may not be contrary to Policy LP SERV 8 ‘Flooding and Land Erosion’ in respect of flood risk as only a small part of the site is shown within the functional flood plain and very unlikely to have any significant impact on potential flooding of the larger filed site that is clearly within the functional flood plain. The issue of land raising is therefore a matter for siting and design that has been addressed above.

E. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters

Roads have no objections in principle to the proposed scheme subject to the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, design of the new vehicular access with appropriate sightlines, design of new internal access, car parking provision and turning, and advice regarding surface water drainage and requirement for Construction Consent (S21) and Road Opening Permit (S56). On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered consistent with the provisions of Policies LP TRAN 4 and TRAN 6 in respect of access and car parking provision .

G. Infrastructure

It is proposed to install a communal Klargester Biodisc Sewage Treatment Plant for all three houses in a location to the rear of the dog-grooming parlour building with outfall pipe to the adjacent field and subsequently discharging into the Little Eachaig River. Surface water drainage from the dwellinghouses will be taken to individual soakaways (no details provided) within the curtilage of the site and the access road, driveways and paths are proposed to be constructed in porous materials.

SEPA comment that there is a general presumption against discharges to the water environment unless it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that a land soakaway option has been investigated but discounted following adequate ground investigations. No such information has been provided.

No information has been submitted in respect of existing and proposed soakaway systems for the existing dwellings, where at least one of the cottages discharges to a soakaway within the application site. No justification has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development cannot be connected to the mains drainage system.

On the basis of the lack of information, the proposal is considered inconsistent with the provisions of Policy POL PU 1 of the Cowal Local Plan 1993 (Adopted 1995); and Policies SERV1 and SERV3 of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan (June 2006).

CONCLUSION

Development of this prominent site for three detached one-and-a-half storey dwellinghouses would result in an unacceptable and unnatural linear extension of a small isolated cluster of three dwellinghouses in open countryside that could not be regarded as infilling or rounding-off and contrary to the Countryside Around Settlement designation and Policy LP HOU 1 within the emerging Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan. The development would result in an unacceptable ribbon development on a site that marks the ‘gateway’ into Sandbank and Dunoon from the north. The scale and layout of the dwellinghouses would result in a development that would be out of context in its rural surroundings while visually dominating the existing buildings.

Additionally, insufficient information has been provided to clearly demonstrate the provision of satisfactory foul drainage arrangements for both proposed and existing dwellings.

Since the proposal would represent an intensification of the existing small cluster of dwellings resulting in unacceptable ribbon development with potential adverse visual impact and that no locational or operational need has been demonstrated, the proposal is contrary to Policies STRAT DC1 and STRAT HO1 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan, policies RUR 1, HO5, and PU1 of the Cowal Local Plan and policies LP ENV19, LP HOU1 and LP SERV1, SERV3 and SERV8 of the Argyll and Bute Modified Finalised Draft Local Plan, and does not justify the grant of planning permission. .