DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Cllr. Robin Currie PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 14th August 2003 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 5th November 2003

21st October 2003 Reference Number: 03/01511/NID Applicants Name: Argyll and Bute Council Application Type: Notice of Intention to Develop Application Description: Construction of improved berthing facilities Location: Bruichladdich Pier, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay

(A ) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:

• Installation of four mooring dolphins linked to pier by steel walkway. • Installation of berthing dolphins and fender wall to end of existing pier.

(ii) Other aspects of the development:

• Dredging/rock removal to accommodate deeper draught tankers.

(B) RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Members be minded to support the application subject to:

1) The standard time limit condition and reason and the conditions and reasons attached;

2) An informal hearing being held in view of the number of representations in respect of the proposal;

3) The application being notified to the Scottish Executive in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development by Planning Authorities)(Scotland) Regulations 1981.

The proposal is for the installation of berthing dolphins and fender piles directly to the end of an existing pier, and the installation of four offset mooring dolphins and a galvanised link walkway. The development is required to overcome the shortcomings of the existing wooden pier and the current berthing arrangements. It has been prompted by the need to meet health and safety requirements associated with the berthing of larger vessels, the need for which has been brought about by Government proposals to ban the use of single-hulled oil tankers. Alternative means of securing the continued long-term use of the site by coastal tanker, such as constructing a solid jetty extension or a remote discharge point out in Loch Indaal, have been considered but have been discounted for environmental, financial, or technical reasons. The existing suppliers have indicated their intention to discontinue deliveries of fuel oil and heavy oils during 2004 unless the existing facilities can be suitably upgraded. If the supplier were to continue making deliveries, these would require to be made by road tanker via the mainland ferry. It is most unlikely that an alternative supplier would be prepared to consider using a small terminal which fails to meet modern shipping standards.

The improvements proposed to the end of the pier will not be readily visible from the shore, and those elements which will be visible will not be significant. The formation of four offset mooring dolphins, two on either side of the pier, linked to the existing structure by 50 m long walkways will have more of an impact visually. There are no objections to the proposal from statutory or other consultees. 56 representations against and 2 for the proposal have been received from third parties, largely in terms of the visual impact of the development, and its possible consequences for small boat users.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

It is considered that the additional berthing structures proposed will be viewed in the context of an existing industrial pier and will not appear unduly incongruous within such a setting. Only the top 4 – 6 metres of the 2.3m diameter structural steel piles forming the dolphins will be visible above sea level, dependant upon the state of the tide. The connecting walkways will not appear dominant elements at the distances from which they will generally be viewed from within the village, given that they are relatively lightweight structures, less than a metre deep and with an open structure tubular handrailing. Lighting will not be significant as it will only be necessary to illuminate the walkways for safety reasons during mooring operations. Access to the pier facilities for fishing vessels and small boat users can be maintained as it is proposed to remove rock and dredge from the tanker berthing area, and provision for other boat access can be made at that time.

Development Plan policy supports the maximization in the use of infrastructure facilities, and measures necessary to safeguarding of vital transport links, and in particular those associated with coastal shipping, which is considered to have both economic and environmental benefits. In this case, it is not considered that the visual impacts of the development or its consequences for the setting of Bruichladdich are of such magnitude, that they would outweigh the overall benefit to the islands in sustaining the continued use of the existing terminal as an affordable, safe and viable means of importing fuel in bulk.

Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 22nd October 2003

Author: Peter Bain 01546 604082 Contact Officer: Richard Kerr 01546 604080

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 03/01511/NID

2. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the lighting scheme for the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details. With the exception of any navigation lighting, illumination of the walkways between the mooring dolphins and the existing pier structure shall only take place during the berthing and sailing of vessels, and lighting along the walkways shall not be illuminated at other times.

Reason: In order to avoid unnecessary illumination to help minimise the impact of the development in the interests of visual amenity.

3. Prior to development commencing, details of the colour finish of the exposed sections of the mooring dolphins, the walkway structure and handrailing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to secure a recessive finish to help minimise the impact of the development in the interests of visual amenity.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 03/01511/NID

A. POLICY OVERVIEW

Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002

STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development

Argyll and Bute Council shall adhere to the following principles in considering development proposals, and in its policies, proposals and land allocations in Local Plans. It will seek to:

a) maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; b) make efficient use of vacant and/or derelict brownfield land; c) support existing communities and maximise the use of existing service infrastructure; d) maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design, including energy efficiency; e) avoid the use of prime quality or locally important good quality agricultural land; f) use public transport routes fully and increase walking and cycling networks; g) avoid the loss of recreational and amenity open space; h) conserve the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and built heritage resources; i) respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; j) avoid places where there is significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability and; k) avoid having an adverse effect on land, air and water quality.

STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements

Encouragement shall be given, subject to capacity assessments, to development in the settlements as follows:

A) Within the Main Towns … B) Within the Small Towns and Villages to development serving a local community of interest, up to and including medium scale development, on appropriate infill, rounding-off and redevelopment sites; in exceptional cases large scale development may be supported. C) Within the Minor Settlements … D) Developments which do not accord with this policy are those outwith A), B) and C) above and urban bad neighbour developments which are essentially incompatible with the close configuration of land uses found in settlements e.g. mineral extraction development or development which results in excessively high development densities, settlement cramming or inappropriate rounding-off on the edge of settlements. E) Developments in settlements are also subject to consistency with the other policies of this Structure Plan and in the Local Plan.

STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control

A) Development which, by reason of location, siting, scale, form, design or cumulative impact, damages or undermines the key environmental features of a visually contained or wider landscape or coastscape shall be treated as ‘non-sustainable’ and is contrary to this policy. Outwith the National Park particularly important and vulnerable landscapes in Argyll and Bute are those associated with: 1. National Scenic Areas 2. Historic landscapes and their settings with close links with archaeology and built heritage and/or historic gardens and designed landscapes. 3. Landward and coastal areas with semi-wilderness or isolated or panoramic quality.

B) Protection, conservation and enhancement to landscape will also be encouraged in association with development and land use proposals.

STRAT CP 1 – Coastal Transhipment Development

Coastal transhipment development on well chosen sites will be supported unless it is incompatible with:

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

A) A particular settlement or edge of settlement location because of conflict with the settlement plan or with the capacity of that settlement to accommodate development; B) A particular coastal location because of the sensitivities of the coastscape or coastal ecology or significant conflict with other coastal use or natural heritage interest.

Islay, Jura and Colonsay Local Plan (1st Alteration) 1988

POL TR 1

The Council recognises the importance of the local plan area’s sea and air links and will strive to support their continued operation in providing a satisfactory standard of services. .

B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

(i) Site History

There is no relevant planning history for this application site.

(ii) Consultations

• National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (received 25.08.03) – No objections.

• Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd. (25.08.03) – No objections.

• Area Roads Engineer (28.08.03) – No objections.

• Scottish Natural Heritage (27.08.03) – No objections.

• Health & Safety Executive (29.08.03, 4.9.03 & 10.09.03) – No objections on public safety grounds. It is however noted that the development should be restricted to commercial/industrial use only as general public access to the pier would increase the sensitivity of the development. It is also noted that if the development proceeds then the terms of the explosives licence for this facility would require to be reviewed.

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (15.09.03) – No objections.

• Kilchoman & Portnahaven Community Council (12.09.03) – Object to the proposal on the following grounds: visual impact of the development upon Bruichladdich; design of gantries; light pollution; effect upon access to pier by fishing boats and leisure craftand the future development of pier for small boats; the proposal may adversely affect local property values; the proposal will adversely affect the local economy; proposed pier extension could only be used by large vessels; more suitable alternatives enabling small vessels should be investigated.

(iii) Supporting Information

The Applicant has submitted supporting information (09.09.03 and 20.10.03) in response to objections and detailing the consideration of alternative schemes as follows:

Solid/breakwater extension to existing pier:

A solid extension of the pier would be at least as visually intrusive, if not more so, than the preferred scheme. The cost of a solid extension would be greater than the present proposal, particularly as the bedrock is very close to the surface and piles cannot be driven. Each pile would have to be socketted and secured at the base to generate the required toe resistance to overturning which would be an expensive means of construction. A solid structure might also generate problems with wave reflection that would be negated with the open structural form proposed.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

Installation of single point mooring:

The oil suppliers, Shell UK, have been consulted about the possibility of a single point mooring in the Loch. They have responded that this type of mooring is usually only employed for vessels over 30 000 tonnes. The teminal at Bruichladdich is to be served by vessels of around 3,000 – 4,000 tonnes. The vessels which would serve this facility are not equipped to use this type of mooring. This arrangement would require a submarine pipeline to link up to the shore facilities, with the attendant risk of pollution in the event of a sea bed pipe being ruptured. This presents a higher environmental risk than having a vessel berthed against the jetty which can be enveloped by an oil boom.

Installation of seaflex buoys:

The other types of mooring suggested, such as seaflex buoys, are directly comparable to the current system of working at the pier, and would not afford the degree of improvement to health and safety that Shell are seeking in the continued servicing of this facility.

Current proposal - installation of mooring dolphins with connecting walkways:

It is considered that the most cost effective and least intrusive solution has been selected. The walkway bridges would be as slender as possible and painted to reduce the visual impact. The continued safe access to the pier for the fishermen can be assured by dredging a channel to the north of the mooring dolphin.

The aesthetics of any scheme is subjective. The current pier at Bruichladdich is industrial, used for the import of fuel oils, coal, fertilizer and road chips. The future use of the pier will retain these facilities. Shell UK have indicated that tanker deliveries will remain at the current rate of once every three weeks, as the capacity of the tank storage at the Gleaner’s depot is the critical element to the timing of fuel deliveries.

It should also be noted that three years ago a feasibility study was undertaken to review fishing and leisure facilities at Bruichladich. As part of this exercise it became apparent that the existing berthing facilities for tankers were inadequate. Subsequent plans were prepared but due to lack of resources the proposals were shelved. Only recently, in light of Government proposals to ban single-hulled tankers, has it been deemed necessary that Bruichladdich Pier will require to accommodate the berhing of 90m long double hull tankers rather than the current 70m long single hulled vessels. It is considered that in order to sustain fuel supplies to Bruichladdich it is essential that the berthing facilities are upgraded. The proposal will not preclude future development work for the fishing/leisure industry being undertaken at the pier. However, there are no funding sources to undertake such works at present.

The Applicant has also submitted correspondence (received 21.10.03) from Shell U.K.Oil Products Ltd. This confirms that Shell will be unable to continue to make deliveries to the island using the existing berthing facilities after July 2004 or thereabouts, as the existing pier would be considered unsafe and not of a standard that is compatible with that of the size of modern, more efficient and environmentally safer ships.

It should also be noted that it is not possible to ship fuel in bulk to any other sites on the island as there are no harbours which would be capable of handling such vessels, and in any case the tank farm is already situated at Bruichladdich. In the event of Bruichladdich ceasing to be used by the current supplier, deliveries would require to be made by road tanker by the mainland ferry, as it is unlikely that any competitor would be prepared to consider using a terminal unsuitable by modern standards .

(iv) Publicity

The proposal has been advertised as a Notice of Intention to Develop in the Oban Times on the 28th August 2003. The notification period expired on 18th September 2003. To date letters of representation have been received from 56 persons in respect of the current proposal. Details of contributors are listed in Appendix A attached; the various issues raised are grouped together and summarised below:

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

Procedure – notification, consultation, requirement for Environmental Assessment and, policies

• That neighbour notification was not served upon an adjacent residential property, ‘Pier House’ as per the requirements of Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(Scotland) Order 1992.

Comments: The property in question is outwith the notifiable distance and therefore there is no requirement for the Council as applicant to serve specific notice upon this property. (In any event, it should be noted that on the date the application was submitted this property was in the process of being renovated from a ruin and had not yet been occupied). The application has been publicised in the local newspaper by the Council as Planning Authority.

• That the Council has attempted to process the application in secrecy and only revealed the proposals at a meeting held two days prior to the publication of an advert in the Oban Times, thus giving the public only 23 days to submit representations to the current proposal.

Comments: The above-mentioned public meeting was organised by the Council as applicant in order to inform local residents of the proposals, and this meeting does not form part of the planning application process. The application was formally publicised on receipt, as per the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(Scotland) Order 1992, including publication of a Notice of Intention to Develop advert in the Oban Times on 28th August 2003. Such an advert requires a minimum public consultation period of 21 days prior to the determination of any such application. This period has been further extended in order to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on additional drawings supplementing the original application. Persons making representations in advance of these supporting details being received were notified by letter individually and afforded an opportunity to inspect the additional details and to comment further.

• That the current proposal may require an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999.

Comments: The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 set out those circumstances where developments are subject to either a mandatory requirement for environmental assessment, (Schedule 1 development), or where the requirement for environmental assessment is discretionary, (Schedule 2) development. This proposal to add new mooring dolphins and associated walkways to an existing pier does not constitute Schedule 1 development. Whilst the ‘construction of harbours and port installations’ is included in Schedule 2, it is subject to a qualifying threshold that ‘the area of the works exceeds 1 hectare’. That is not the case in this instance, and therefore the development does not require to be the subject of a formal ‘screening opinion’ as to whether environmental assessment should be required. (It should be noted that even if the development exceeded the threshold, this would only trigger the need for a ‘screening opinion’ and would not automatically result in a requirement for an environmental assessment to accompany the proposal. Only in circumstances where a proposal exceeds the threshold and involves ‘significant’ environmental effects - usually complex or inter- related environmental consequences - would environmental assessment be required).

• That the proposal is contrary to Objective SI 1 – Economic Objectives (d), Objective SI 2 – Environmental Objectives (c) & (d) and 2.4 1 the “polluter pays principle” as stated in the ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ dated September 2001.

Comments: It should be noted that the Structure Plan referred to is a draft version of the plan; the adopted plan being an amended version approved in November 2002. In any event, it should be noted that the objectives referred to reflect the Council’s general aspirations and the overall objectives of the Structure Plan rather than the approved policies. Policy STRAT 1 of the Argyll and Bute Council Structure Plan (2002) sets out the Council’s Policy context for achieving sustainable development and thus realising the afore-mentioned objectives.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

• That the proposal is contrary to POL SI 1 – Sustainable Development (c) and (i) as set out in the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan dated September 2001.

Comments: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the aims of STRAT SI 1 of the Structure Plan, in that the economic requirements for the proposed development outweigh the adverse visual consequences of the development, whilst also maximising the use of existing infrastructure. The maintenance of a viable fuel supply to the island communities is key element in safeguarding the viability of, and supporting the economy of, peripheral communities.

• That the proposal is contrary to recommendation REC SI 3 – Argyll and the Isles Rural Development Area (c) and schedule 4 (11) as stated in the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan dated September 2001.

• That the proposal is contrary to STRAT DC 5 as stated in the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan dated September 2001.

Comments: It should be noted that the Structure Plan referred to is a draft version of the plan, the adopted plan being an amended version approved in November 2002. Policies STRAT DC 2 to STRAT DC 6 inclusive refer to land zoning which shall be designated and mapped as part of the forthcoming Argyll and Bute Local Plan. At present, no such zones are in effect, as the plan has yet to be approved by the Council as a draft for consultation purposes. It should also be noted that at present the application site does not lie within any area specifically designated for its scenic value.

That the proposal is contrary to recommendation REC CP 2 – Sea Fishing Interests (a) as stated in the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan dated September 2001.

Comments: The recommendations contained within the Structure Plan set out the framework on which the policies and proposals in the forthcoming Argyll and Bute Local Plan shall be based and are not policy requirements. It should also be noted that the Applicant has stated that the proposed development shall not adversely affect the interests of fishing vessels utilising Bruichladdich Pier.

Visual impact – of the structures upon and from Bruichladdich

• That the proposed development, which includes long stretches of metal walkways/gantries, would appear more like a modern oil terminal rather than a traditional West Highland pier, and as such is completely out of character with the settlement of Bruichladdich.

Comments: It is considered that the proposed installation of mooring dolphins and a connecting walkway will be viewed in the context of an existing industrial pier and will not appear incongruous in such a setting. The proposed structure has an open form with a metal walkways spanning between the existing pier and the columns forming the mooring dolphins on either side. These can be finished in a recessive colour appropriate to the backdrop of Loch Indaal. Whilst the development will change the overall appearance of the pier, it is considered that the general concerns with regard to the magnitude of the visual impact of the proposed development upon the setting of Bruichladdich have been overstated.

• That the proposed walkways/gantries will inevitably be floodlit during the hours of darkness, such a requirement is likely to result in light pollution having an adverse impact upon both the character and amenity of Bruichladdich.

Comments: The effect of lighting is a material planning consideration. In the event of permission being granted, in order to prevent unnecessary light pollution, it is recommended that planning conditions be imposed stipulating that the walkways may only

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

be illuminated when a vessel is berthed or during maintenance works, with the exception of any lighting required for navigation purposes. The applicant has confirmed that it is not proposed to floodlight the facility and that only low wattage pedestrian lighting sufficient to meet the statutory minimum requirement would be necessary for the safety of those using the walkways during mooring operations.

Natural heritage

• That the proposed development will have an adverse impact upon natural heritage interests in the locality.

Comment: Scottish Natural Heritage note that whilst there are natural heritage interests of some importance at this location it is considered that the current proposal would not threaten these interests.

Economy – fishing, tourism, guesthouses & distillery, property values

• That, by virtue of its visual impact, the proposal is likely to have an adverse effect upon the value of properties in the locality.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.

• That, in the event that local property prices decrease, it may be necessary for a reassessment of the rateable value on real estate within Bruichladdich.

Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.

• That the proposal, by virtue of its visual impact upon the settlement of Bruichladdich and the wider coastscape, is likely to have an adverse effect upon tourism and tourist related businesses within the locality of Bruichladdich, including Bruichladdich Distillery. It is anticipated that such a drop in tourism related industry would also have an adverse effect upon local employment.

Comment: It is the consideration of the Planning Department that concerns with regard to the visual impact of the proposal upon the setting and character of Bruichladdich have been somewhat overstated, and that the proposed development is unlikely to have any direct consequences for tourism or employment in the locality.

• That the proposed extension to the pier is likely to adversely affect the safety of small boats as in certain weather & tide conditions and would restrict safe passage of fishing boats and leisure craft to Bruichladdich Pier.

Comments: The applicant has stated that implementation of the current proposal shall not adversely affect navigable access to the existing pier for small vessels. (It should be noted that rock removal/dredging - not requiring planning permission – is to be undertaken and that this would provide for access around the new structure for small boats.

• That implementation of the current proposal would preclude any future development plans for the construction of improved facilities for fishing vessels and leisure craft at Bruichladdich Pier.

Comments: The Applicant has stated that implementation of the current proposal would not preclude further improvements to facilities for fishing/leisure craft at Bruichladdich, subject to funding being identified.

• That the current proposal shall only benefit Shell Oil Ltd. and bears little resemblance to previous schemes initially discussed with the Council’s former Transportation and Property Services and residents of Bruichladdich, which included provision of improved facilities for fishing/leisure craft.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

Comments: The Applicant has stated that at present there are no funding sources available to carry out works related to the improvement of fishing/leisure facilities at Bruichladdich.

Alternative schemes

• That the Council has not given adequate consideration to alternative schemes, including the use of floating buoys, a solid breakwater or an off-shore single point terminal, which would allow the berthing of 90m tankers but which would be more sympathetic to the character and appearance of Bruichladdich.

Comments: The Applicant has stated that alternative schemes have been considered but have been discounted on the grounds of health & safety, potential environmental risks, visual impact and cost.

Two letters of support have been received from Gleaner Oils Ltd., Milnfield, Elgin (17.09.03) and; Tim Epps, Port Charlotte, Islay (18.09.03). The issues raised are summarised below:

Gleaner Oil and Gas (17.09.03) state that they are the main users of the existing pier with approximately 20 vessel visits per annum. Gleaner Oils Ltd. receive in the region of 13,000 tonnes of products annually for the Shell Europe Oil Products terminal at this location. The proposed plans offer much improved mooring and berthing positions for all vessels, large or small and with the additional 1 metre of depth available. This gives vessels much improved flexibility and manoeuvrability potentially enabling docking through a larger tidal window than at present. Safe access to the mooring dolphins, as provided for by the proposed walkways is vitally important for the routine replacement of mooring lines and the less regular task of replacement of broken ropes. It is presumed that Health and Safety requirements will require that these walkways/dolphins be capable of being lit for access during the hours of darkness.

Tim Epps (18,09,03) states that his coal merchants business has utilised the pier since 1968, where up until the demise of the British coal industry in the 1980’s, 2,000 tonnes of coal were landed at Bruichladdich annually. After this, coal has had to be sourced from Poland and is delivered by much larger boats delivering a minimum of 1200 tonnes however, due to berthing difficulties at Bruichladdich such operations have ceased and coal is now imported to the island by road from Invergordon and Hunterston.

(v) Assessment

The proposal is for the installation of berthing dolphins and fender wall directly to an existing pier, and the installation of four offset mooring dolphins and a galvanised link walkway. The development is required to overcome the shortcomings of the existing wooden pier and the current berthing arrangements, and to meet health and safety requirements in order to be able to accommodate larger vessels, the requirement for which has been brought about by Government proposals to ban the use of single hulled oil tankers. Copies of submitted correspondence from Shell U.K. Oil Ltd. would indicate that unless the pier is suitably upgraded by July 2004, that the company would cease deliveries of fuel oils to the island using the current facilities.

The proposal comprises a new fender wall to the end of, and berthing dolphins immediately to the side of, the end of the existing pier. It is also proposed to install four offset mooring dolphins which would be attached to either side of the end of the pier by cranked walkways. The application also includes for associated dredging/rock removal to increase the depth of the pier to accommodate vessels with a deeper draft than at present. These works are to take place on the seabed below the MLWS and consequently do not require express planning consent. The details of the proposed works requiring consent are as follows.

The proposed berthing dolphins adjacent to the pier end are 2.3 metre diameter steel tubular monopiles with rubber fender panels, which are to be installed at approximately 3 metres and 7 metres away from the end of the existing pier. The dolphins are to be

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

connected to the existing pier by an 8 metre section of galvanised steel access walkway on either side, with a 1m high safety handrail. The proposed fender wall to the pier end would consist of twenty five, 0.45 metre diameter steel tubular piles with greenheart timber fenders. It is considered that the installation of this new fender wall and the adjacent berthing dolphins close in to the existing pier end, (which shall be the approximately the same height as the existing pier, some 2.8m above MHWS and 4.2m above MLWS) will not have any material consequences for the overall appearance of the pier as a whole.

The proposal also includes for the installation of four mooring dolphins, two on either side of the existing pier, at approximately 18 metres and 48 metres from the edge of the existing pier. The mooring dolphins will also be constructed of 2.3 metre diameter steel tubular monopiles installed in rock sockets to the sea bed, to an approximate height of 3.9m above MHWS and 5.8 above MLWS. The mooring dolphins would be connected to the main pier by 50 metre sections of galvanised steel access walkway with a 1 metre high safety handrail, which will be constructed on either side of the pier end, and cranked back to connect with the appropriate position of the outlying dolphins.

It appears that, in particular, the inclusion of these walkway ‘arms’ to either side of the pier, and parallel to the road frontage in Bruichladdich, has led to the significant public opposition to the proposal. The position and number of the mooring points required to safely secure the new generation of coastal tankers has dictated the position of the mooring dolphins. As these are some considerable distance off shore and from the pier, it is necessary to provide a walkway of minimum proportions to enable a crew member to safely access these locations. (The current arrangement of taking mooring lines to the shore is no longer tenable with larger vessels, as it places unacceptable stresses on the wooden pier structure). The proposed mooring dolphins and connecting walkway will be visible from the main road and the village frontage and will be an element in the views out over Loch Indaal. Consequently, it will have some impact upon the setting of the settlement of Bruichladdich as a whole. It should be noted however, that the proposed walkways will be some 95 metres out from high water mark, some 140 metres from the road, and further still from the properties on the shore-side of the road. Only ‘Pier House’ at the landward end of the pier itself will be within a 100 metres.

It is clear that the aged pier and the existing berthing arrangements at Bruichladdich are less than satisfactory, and whilst it has been possible to handle small coastal tankers up to now with rather makeship mooring arrangements, the available draught at the pier and the existing mooring facilities are not suitable to allow deliveries to continue using the new generation of larger double-hulled tankers. This deficiency can only be addressed by providing a mooring/discharge arrangement which meets current standards. Failure to upgrade the facilities would lead to the current supplier discontinuing deliveries by shipping, and if they were to continue to supply the island, all heavy oil/fuel oil would require to be delivered by road tanker, as is currently the case with petrol. This would be likely to have adverse consequences for the environment, for mainland ferry capacity, for fuel prices, and in turn, for the island economy.

Various options have been considered, including solid extension of the pier by means of a jetty, and remote discharge arrangements out in Loch Indaal. These have either been rejected on grounds of environmental impact, cost considerations, or for technical reasons in order to meet the stated requirements of the shipper. The chosen option will clearly have some visual impact upon the Bruichladdich waterfront and the views from the village out over the loch. However, it is considered that the objectors have somewhat overstated the magnitude of this impact, given the scale of the proposals, which are limited to the minimum necessary to provide secure mooring positions, and crew member access thereto. It is considered that the proposed solution will not have such an overwhelming

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

impact upon the setting of Bruichladdich to warrant refusal of the application, particularly given the need to provide facilities which will enable the continued coastal shipment of fuel oils to the overall benefit of the island communities.

Structure Plan Policy STRAT SI 1 states the principles that the Council shall adhere to in the determination of development proposals to meet the objectives of ‘sustainable development’. These principles include for the maximisation of the use of existing service infrastructure. Structure Plan Policy STRAT CP 1 and Local Plan Policy TR 1 stress the importance of sustaining vital transport links to the islands, other than in cases where other environmental considerations would militate against development proposals, and be in conflict with other relevant development plan policies. In this case, it is not considered that the visual consequences of the development are of such magnitude, that they would outweigh the overall benefit to the islands in sustaining the continued use of the existing terminal as an affordable, safe and viable means of importing fuel in bulk.

C. REQUIREMENT FOR AN INFORMAL HEARING

This is a local authority proposal that has been the subject of extensive third party representations. It is therefore appropriate that Members should hold an informal local hearing to enable interested parties to make representations verbally before any decision is reached. It would be intended to forward the minutes of such a hearing to the Scottish Executive once the application had been considered by Members, in order to assist in the decision as to whether this Notification of Intention to Develop (NID) application ought to be ‘called-in’ for determination by the Scottish Ministers.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 03/01511/NID

LIST OF REPRESENTATIONS RAISING OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL

1 Adams Dougie Waterside 16.09.03 Cottage, Conisby, Bruichladdich, Islay 2 Anderson Lars C.A. 17 Cadogah 30.09.03 Square, London 3 Andrew David The Abbotsford, 15.09.03 & Bruichladdich, 17.09.03 Islay 4 Ardtalla Estates Ltd. 63A South Audley 10.09.03 Street, London 5 Bruichladdich Distillery Company Bruichladdich 08.09.03 & Ltd. Distillery, Islay 10.09.03 (by fax) & 12.09.03 (copy letter) & 12.09.03 & 21.10.03 6 Callow Joan & John Lochlea, 11.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 7 Campbell William J.M. The Lodge, 09.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 8 Clyde Fishermens Association PO Box 9261, 19.09.03 Campbeltown 9 Dowling C.B. 110 Home Park 15.09.03 Road, Wimbledon, London 10 Downham Fred Ivy Villa, 62 15.09.03 Chapel Street, Galgate, Lancaster 11 Dunlossit Estate Dunlossit Estate, 09.09.03 Estate Office, Knocklearach Farm, Ballygrant, Islay 12 Falconer R.E.R. & L.M. Caberfeidh, 09.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 13 Findlay K.H. Smithy House, 10.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 14 Fremont Limited PO Box 6193, 24.09.03 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland 15 Gallimore R.J. Druimard, 12.09.03

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

Bruichladdich, Islay 16 Gillespie Susan & 1 Kingsway 08.09.03 (by Laura Avenue, e-mail) copy Newcastle Upon by letter Tyne & 39 10.09.03 Dowanhill Street, Glasgow 17 Grant Anne 16 Broomhill, 12.09.03 Bowmore, Islay 18 Greaves Tim 21 Hids Copse 30.09.03 Road, Cumnor 19 Hannett Mr & Mrs Kilnave Old 15.09.03 Schoolhouse, Gruinart, Islay 20 Inman Investment Management 4 Orinda Way, 15.09.03 Building D, Suite 150 Orinda, CA, USA 21 Islay Estates Company Estate Office, 11.09.03 Bridgend, Islay 22 Islay Marine Charters Eresaid, 12.09.03 Bridgend, Islay 23 Jackson George Shorefield, 05.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 24 Johnstone David Fairnielaw 12.09.03 House, Athelstaneford, North Berwick, East Lothian 25 Law Joy Curlew Cottage, 09.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 26 Lewis Meriwether F. Unknown 15.09.03 address 27 Loightman C.P.J. Berrystead 12.09.03 House, Berry End, Eversholt, Buckinghamshire 28 MacDonald Anne S. Anchorage, 09.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 29 McAfee Nigel Kentraw 17.09.03 Farmhouse, Bruichladdich, Islay 30 McAuslan D.H.C. Failte, 05.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 31 McMurdo Sybil & Mr The Old 19.09.03 Alastair Schoolhouse, Portnahaven, Islay 32 McNeill Rachel 17 Broomhill, 12.09.03 Bowmore, Islay 33 Newnham E.R. 27 Morden Hill, 19.09.03 London 34 Ogilvie Dr & Mrs Glencairn, 09.09.03 M.A. Bruichladdich, Islay 35 Page Robert E. 2 School Street, 15.09.03

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

Portnahaven, Islay 36 Parkin Sara (OBE) & 227a City Road, 22.09.03 Dr D. London & Main Maxwell Street, Port Charlotte, Islay 37 Prentice Jack & Myra Lochgorm House, 17.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 38 Reavey Jan Lorgba House, 10.09.03 Port Charlotte, Islay 39 Rennie Paul Anvil House, 03.09.03 West End, Port Charlotte, Islay 40 Rhinns Harbour Committee/ Springbank 09.09.03 & Bruichladdich Pier Action Group House, 12.09.03 & Bruichladdich, 22.09.03 (by Islay fax) & 22.09.03 (further letter by fax) & 24.09.03 (copy letter) & 24.09.03 (copy letter) & 06.10.03 (by fax), 08.10.03 (copy letter). 41 Roberts Peter Caberfeidh 09.09.03 Bungalow, Bruichladdich, Islay 42 Rochemont Fiduciaire S.A. P.O. Box 6193, 15.09.03 CH-1211, Geneva 6, Switzerland 43 Roper David A. 1021 Point West, 16.09.03 116 Cromwell Road, London 44 Rowland Mrs Kay Caladh na Sith, 11.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay 45 Roy Mrs Gael Sgioba House, 10.09.03 Port Charlotte, Islay 46 Sellers John M Spring Bank 02.09.03 House, Bruichladdich, Islay 47 Sheldon Dr & Mrs KP, Pier House, 04.09.03 & Mr & Mrs R. Bruichladdich, 10.09.03 Islay – also 4 Station Road, Esholt, Shipley, West Yorkshire 48 Taylor Jane Bluehouses, 12.09.03 Bridgend, Islay 49 The Abbotsford The Abbotsford 16.09.03 B&B, Bruichladdich,

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC

Islay 50 The Croft Kitchen The Croft 09.09.03 Kitchen, Port Charlotte, Islay 51 The Richard Kleinwort Consultancy Heaselands, 12.09.03 Group Isaacs Lane, Haywards Heath, West Sussex 52 The Weston Pension Fund Rants Farm, Old 11.09.03 Kiln Lane, Bolton 53 Timpson Mr N.G.L. & Blackrock House, 09.09.03 Lady Selina Bridgend, Islay 54 Wavo Properties, L.P. William A. 443 S.W. Sixth 16.09.03 Van Orsdel Street, Des Moines, IA, USA 55 Wood Dr Richard Coultorsay 09.10.03 House, Bruichladdich, Islay 56 Woodrow James 17 Burnside, 19.09.03 Bruichladdich, Islay

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000243\M00001206\AI00010323\PLANNINGAPPLICATION0301511NIDBRUICHLADDICHPIER0.DOC