Agenda Document for Planning, Protective Services and Licensing

Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid

Customer Services Executive Director: Douglas Hendry

Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD

9 November 2016

NOTICE OF MEETING

A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2016 at 10:45 AM, which you are requested to attend.

Douglas Hendry Executive Director of Customer Services

BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3. MINUTES

(a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 17 October 2016 at 10.00 am (Pages 1 - 2)

(b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 17 October 2016 at 10.20 am (Pages 3 - 8)

(d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 17 October 2016 at 11.00 am (Pages 15 - 16)

(e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 17 October 2016 at 11.20 am (Pages 17 - 18)

(f) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 19 October 2016 (Pages 19 - 26)

(g) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 25 October 2016 (Pages 27 - 40)

(h) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee 3 November 2016 (Pages 41 - 64) 4. MR ANTONY CASCI: ERECTION OF GARDEN FENCE (RETROSPECTIVE): GLENASKEL, 16 FERNOCH DRIVE, LOCHGILPHEAD (REF: 16/01944/PP) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (issued with Agenda for Site Inspection to be held on 16 November 2016 at 9.30 am)

5. ECOTRICITY: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION RELATIVE TO UPPER SONACHAN WIND FARM: LAND AT UPPER SONACHAN FOREST, SOUTH EAST OF PORTSONACHAN, LOCH AWE (REF: 15/03175/S36) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 65 – 112)

6. MRS DENICE PUNLER: MASTERPLAN IN RESPECT OF STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN AREA 1/2 AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 2/42 RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING TOURISM/LEISURE/HOUSING/BUSINESS): CASTLE TOWARD RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, TOWARD (REF: 16/02356/MPLAN) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 113 – 136)

7. KEITH AND DENICE PUNLER: CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS 8 (RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION) TO CLASS 9 (DWELLINGHOUSE), INCLUDING ANCILLARY/HOUSEKEEPERS ACCOMMODATION AND SUI GENERIS USE AS A COMMERCIAL/LEISURE EVENTS VENUE: CASTLE TOWARD MANSION HOUSE (INCLUDING WALLED GARDENS AND GREENHOUSE), TOWARD (REF: 16/00996/PP) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 137 – 158)

8. MRS DENICE PUNLER: DEMOLITION OF ENCLOSED FIRE ESCAPE, METAL FIRE ESCAPE AND METAL CLAD SHEDS. INSTALLATION OF NEW DOORWAY, VENTILATION LOURVE, BALCONY RAILINGS, 3 NEW WINDOWS, 2 SETS OF EXTERNAL DOORS, NEW GLAZED ROOF OVER EXISTING COURTYARD. INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE LEISURE FACILITIES AT BASEMENT LEVEL, REMOVAL OF WALL BETWEEN BALLROOM AND FUNCTION ROOM, INSTALLATION OF LIFT AND TOILETS AT GROUND FLOOR LEVEL, REMOVAL OF PARTITIONS AND INSTALLATION OF PARTITION WALLS TO PROVIDE EN-SUITES TO FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR BEDROOMS: CASTLE TOWARD RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, TOWARD (REF: 16/01405/LIB) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 159 – 168)

9. MR ALEXANDER MCLACHLAN: ERECTION OF GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: FLAT 1, 22 MARINE PARADE, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (REF: 16/02350/PP) Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 169 – 186)

10. ADVERTISEMENT & SIGNAGE POLICY TECHNICAL WORKING NOTE Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (Pages 187 – 216) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee

Councillor David Kinniburgh Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor George Freeman Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Neil MacIntyre Councillor Robert Graham MacIntyre Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor James McQueen Councillor Sandy Taylor Councillor Richard Trail

Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392

MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2016

Present: Councillor Alex McNaughton (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor George Freeman Councillor James McQueen Councillor Neil MacIntyre Councillor Richard Trail

Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager Kate Connelly, Solicitor Sergeant Iain MacNicol, Police Scotland Sergeant Martin Balkeen, Police Scotland

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Robin Currie, David Kinniburgh, Alistair MacDougall, Donald MacMillan and Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: SUSPENSION HEARING - TAXI DRIVER LICENCE (D BLOOMFIELD, DUNOON)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.

The Committee were advised that the Licence Holder was not in attendance and it was established that notification of the hearing was sent to his Agent. A letter was also posted recorded delivery to the Licence Holder but this was returned unopened. Ms Connelly advised that it was normal procedure when an Agent was acting on behalf of a client that notification of a hearing was sent to the Agent and it was for the Agent to advise his client of the date, time and venue of the hearing.

The Committee agreed to proceed with the hearing.

Police

Sergeant MacNicol advised that Mr Bloomfield had pled guilty to careless driving at Court on 5 August 2016 and he was fined £320 and received 6 penalty points on his driver’s licence.

Members’ Questions and Debate

Councillor Robert MacIntyre sought and received confirmation from Sergeant MacNicol that the minimum points on a driving licence for careless driving was 3 points and that Mr Bloomfield had received more than that. Councillor McCuish advised given that Mr Bloomfield had pled guilty there was no question what the Committee should do and that his licence should be suspended.

Councillor Colville agreed with Councillor McCuish’s comments.

Decision

The Committee unanimously agreed to suspend Mr Bloomfield’s Taxi Driver’s Licence with immediate effect and that the period of suspension shall be the unexpired portion of the duration of the licence as it was considered that he was no longer a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence.

(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted) MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2016

Present: Councillor Alex McNaughton (Chair)

Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager Kate Connelly, Solicitor Bill Forsyth, Maritime and Coastguard Agency Ian Prescott, Licence Holder.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Robin Currie, David Kinniburgh, Alistair MacDougall, Donald MacMillan and Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: SUSPENSION HEARING - BOAT HIRE LICENCE (I PRESCOTT, LOCHGOILHEAD)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. Thereafter he outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited Mr Forsyth to speak in support of the complaint submitted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

Complainant

Mr Forsyth referred to an incident which took place on Loch Goil on 30 August 2016 and resulted in 13 persons entering the water. He advised that he undertook an investigation into the circumstances which led to the incident taking place and confirmed that he met with Mr Prescott on 9 September 2016 in order to carry out an assessment of the vessel. He then referred to receiving incident reports from persons involved in the rescue including the local GP, the coastguard and local residents. He advised that on completion of his investigation into this incident a number of defects and areas of non-compliance in relation to both Argyll and Bute Council’s Boat Hire licence conditions and General Merchant Shipping Health and Safety regulations were recorded and the details of these were sent to the Council’s Licensing Team on 12 September 2016.

License Holder

Prior to hearing from Mr Prescott, Mr Jackson advised of a late email of support received from Mr Paul Sheardown, Technical Advisor, Canoe Adventures, and the Committee agreed to take this into consideration. Mr Prescott also advised of other supporting information he had which could be passed round the Committee if they wished. This included his Risk Assessment and Emergency Plan and Trip Advisor reviews since 2012.

Mr Prescott advised that his business, Argyll Voyageur Canoes, has been in operation since 2011 and that he has obtained licences from Argyll and Bute Council and from the Adventures Activities Licensing Authority (AALA). He also confirmed that he spoke at length with both organisations to ensure that he was complying with their licensing conditions.

Mr Prescott then described the incident which took place on Loch Goil on 30 August 2016. He explained that the canoe capsized towards the end of the day in less than 10 metres of water. He stated that no one at any time was in any grave or imminent danger. He said that as the incident took place so close to shore they could have self-rescued. He advised that staff from the Lochgoilhead National Activity Centre were close by and assisted using safety ribs. He said that the local GP happened to be fishing nearby and he arranged for the passengers to be checked over at the local medical centre. He stated that all the customers were in good spirits and left testimonies that they would like to come back next year.

Mr Prescott pointed out that Trip Advisor were good strong promotors of his business with 60 – 100 reviews stating what an excellent service he provided to Argyll. He referred to it being described as the top activity in Scotland and that he was proud of what had been achieved over the last 4 years.

Mr Prescott then addressed each of the 7 points in turn which were raised by the MCA in their email to the Licensing Team dated 12 September 2016 and offered an explanation for each. He referred to the need for life jackets as a condition of the Boat Hire Licence with Argyll and Bute Council and advised that AALA preferred the use of buoyancy aids. He explained that all of his passengers are given Personal Floatation Devices to wear and are given a full safety briefing on how these should be worn. He also advised that they are then given a further safety briefing on board on what to do in the event that the canoe capsized. He stated that no one was permitted on board unaccompanied and no one was permitted on board without a buoyancy aid.

He acknowledged that his Flares were out of date by 4 months and pointed out that in respect of this incident they were not in a situation where these were required to be used.

He referred to the fact that his advertising literature stated that 10 passengers were carried and that at the time of the incident there were 12 passengers. He confirmed that his licence allowed him to carry 12 passengers and that the reason he advertised 10 passengers was to give him the discretion to assess on a case by case basis how many would be permitted on board. He explained that 12 adults would be too many especially if they were above average size. He pointed out that on this occasion there were 6 adults and 6 young people.

He acknowledged that he did not have the maximum number of persons to be carried displayed on the vessel nor did he have the vessel registration number clearly displayed. He referred to the MCA suggesting that his business Risk assessment relating to emergency preparedness and emergency communications was not viable and stated that their main concern was that his business did not have a personal location beacon. He advised that he was willing to receive advice on this from the Council, AALA and the MCA as to what would be appropriate. He stated that this current Risk Assessment plan was cleared by AALA, the Council and the Queens Harbour Master. He referred to there being 7 emergency points of contact around the loch and read these out.

He referred to the need for a marine survey and explained that he had experienced difficulty in finding someone suitably qualified to carry out a marine survey on his vessel and advised that he went to someone highly qualified within the National Activity Centre who provided a letter to the Council of their qualifications to carry out this survey and that this had been accepted. He explained that a survey was carried out when he applied for renewal of his licence with the Council last year and that he has also been inspected twice by AALA.

Questions from Complainant

Mr Forsyth referred to the Risk Assessment and asked Mr Prescott if he could confirm whether or not he had received written agreement from the 7 emergency contacts. Mr Prescott explained that at the moment he had verbal agreements and that if the Committee agreed not to suspend his licence he would obtain these in writing.

Members’ Questions

Councillor McCuish asked what Mr Forsyth’s professional experience was in respect of carrying out investigations for the MCA. Mr Forsyth confirmed that he was a qualified Marine Surveyor and that since 2003 has been qualified to carry out surveys, inspections and audits. He also advised that he has carried out the inspection of over 550 vessel incidents and that this figure did not include audits or surveys.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Forsyth that he was not aware if Mr Prescott had addressed any of the 7 points raised in his email to the Council.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that he had still to address the issues raised by the MCA. Mr Prescott explained that he was waiting for the outcome of this hearing first and advised that if his licence was suspended his business would cease and he would have to consider moving from Argyll with his family.

Councillor Blair questioned the differing licensing conditions of the Council and AALA. He asked Mr Forsyth for his opinion on whether life jackets or buoyancy aids would be better. Mr Forsyth explained that it was a condition the Council to have life jackets. He stated that buoyancy aids would be acceptable for persons expecting to enter the water, for example, kayakers and dinghy sailors. He stated that life jackets would be more suitable for persons not expecting to enter the water, for example, passengers. Mr Prescott explained that his customers were not passengers on his canoe and that they were crew members required to have freedom of movement on the vessel. He stated that a buoyancy aid was safer in the event of a vessel capsizing as they offered thermal insulation. He confirmed that buoyancy aids were his preferred choice but he would be willing to invest in life jackets in order to comply with Argyll and Bute Council’s rules.

Councillor Colville referred to the capsize happening close to the shore and asked Mr Prescott how long and what distance his trips were. Mr Prescott confirmed that the trips lasted 3 to 4 hours covering a distance of 8 miles. Mr Prescott confirmed that when it was not possible to obtain a radio signal he was able to use a Vodafone signal.

Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that the incident occurred due to equipment failure.

Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that his public liability insurance would probably have been void due to the Flares being out of date. Mr Forsyth confirmed that over the years he has been aware of insurance companies not paying out if items on a ship were expired.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that he only had one boat and did not operate another vessel. Mr Prescott advised that it was his intention to fix the boat and continue operating in Argyll if the Committee did not suspend his licence. He confirmed that if his licence was suspended he would consider this the end of his business.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that he required his Boat Hire Licence to enable him to repair his vessel.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that he has had to turn down business since the incident took place.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr Prescott that there was one crew member and 12 passengers on the boat when it capsized in water less than 10 metres deep and close to the sand bank.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Forsyth that Mr Prescott would not need a Boat Hire Licence to enable him to fix his vessel.

Councillor Robert MacIntyre referred to previous inspections carried out on the vessel and queried why faults were not identified during these inspections. Mr Prescott explained that they were unidentifiable and that there was no sign that an incident was about to take place.

Councillor Freeman asked both Mr Forsyth and Mr Prescott if any assessment had been carried out on what the cost would be to rectify the issues identified by the MCA. Mr Forsyth advised that this is not something the MCA would do. Mr Prescott estimated that it would cost around £2,000 to rectify all the issues. Summing Up

Complainant

Mr Forsyth advised that the MCA were happy to discuss any point raised in their email to the Council and to discuss further any part of the incident which took place which resulted in 13 persons entering the water due to the failure of the vessel.

Licence Holder

Mr Prescott advised that he has spent his whole life investing in sailing activities and introducing interesting activities to Argyll. He advised that he recognised the need for adjustments to be made. He referred to looking to expand his business across other parts of Argyll as his licence covered the whole of Argyll. He explained that he had chosen up till now to operate within a small area at the head of Loch Goil and that was what his Risk Assessment and emergency action plan was based on.

When asked both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.

Debate

Councillor Colville advised that Mr Prescott has impressed him with his enthusiasm for his business. He referred to the need for the conditions of a licence to be complied with and recommended that the licence be suspended until Mr Prescott had met all the mandatory conditions of his Boat Hire Licence and had also arranged for a marine survey to be carried out.

Councillor Trail advised that he supported the comments made by Councillor Colville. He commented that if the accident had ended up worse than it was there was a danger that Mr Prescott’s public liability insurance would not have paid out. He stated that it concerned him that Mr Prescott had taken lightly what was required of him. He advised that he had no hesitation in supporting Mr Forsyth’s recommendation that the licence be withdrawn until the defects were rectified.

Councillor Neil MacIntyre referred to the business being unofficially suspended as the boat had not been fixed. He commented that if this was his only source of income he would have arranged for the boat to be fixed. He confirmed that he supported the recommendation to suspend the licence until all the works were complete.

Councillor Freeman referred to the business not operating for the last 2 months. He referred to the cost involved to rectify the defects not being considerable.

Councillor Blair referred to the 7 defects listed by the MCA. He referred to the need for partnership working. He also referred to the need to encourage local businesses but in a safe and competent way. He said that Mr Prescott had got off lightly with this incident. He confirmed that he supported the suspension of the licence.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Jackson that the suspension of a licence and the withdrawal of a licence meant the same thing. Councillor McNaughton stated that he was very well aware of the activities on Loch Goil and advised that he totally supported this enterprise. He advised that it was important that this was carried out in a safe manner.

Councillor Colville moved the immediate suspension of Mr Prescott’s Boat Hire Licence until such time as all mandatory conditions have been met and proper evaluation by an individual qualified in maritime surveying, agreed by the MCA and Argyll and Bute Council, has been completed on the craft. This Motion was seconded by Councillor Trail and unanimously agreed by the Committee.

Decision

The Committee unanimously agreed to suspend Mr Prescott’s Boat Hire Licence until such time as all mandatory conditions have been met and proper evaluation by an individual qualified in maritime surveying, agreed by the MCA and Argyll and Bute Council, has been completed on the craft.

Present: Councillor Alex McNaughton (Chair)

Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager Kate Connelly, Solicitor Mrs MacGregor, Applicant Mr MacGregor, Applicant’s Agent Mr Kirby, Objector Mrs Kirby, Objector

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Robin Currie, David Kinniburgh, Alistair MacDougall, Donnie MacMillan and Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF PRIVATE HIRE CAR LICENCE (C MACGREGOR, KILCREGGAN)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed.

Mr Jackson advised the Committee that 2 late letters of support had been received and the Committee agreed to take these into consideration.

Applicant

Mr MacGregor advised that he would speak on behalf of Mrs MacGregor. He confirmed that they were seeking the grant of a Private Hire Car Licence and that they currently had 2 other Private Hire Car Licences. He explained that their business was running well and they were applying for a third licence as sole trader in order to meet the demand for their service. He said that they wished to bolster their business and that another car would add resilience in case any of their cars were off the road in the event of vehicle breakdown.

Questions from Objector

Mr Kirby asked Mr MacGregor to expand further on why they thought they needed a third car. Mr MacGregor referred to the geography of the area. He stated that they wished to add another vehicle to their business to support increasing demand for their service. He said there was a need for a private plate rather than a public plate.

Mr Kirby questioned where the evidence was to justify the need for an additional licence. Mr MacGregor advised that he could only go by the demand for his service. He stated that other businesses were reducing their plates and not working as many hours.

Mr Kirby referred to section 8 of the application form and received confirmation from Mr MacGregor that the business was operated from Willow Lodge.

Objector

Mr Kirby advised that he had a number of issues with this application. He stated that he and his wife have lived at their property peacefully for 5 years and that around the time the licences for the 2 other vehicles operated by Mrs Fowlis and Mrs MacGregor were granted the business has moved to operate from a private dwelling with a shared driveway that serves their home. He explained that he wrote to the owner of the property which is rented by one of the drivers of the taxi business and highlighted the problems they were experiencing. He advised that the shared driveway was very narrow; it was the only pedestrian access to their home and that 2 other properties were also served by this driveway. He advised that there was an increasing number of taxi vehicles driving up and down the driveway and that they were regularly experiencing a lot of loud noise as the taxi drivers were stopping in their garden to take calls from customers. He referred to being increasingly disrupted at 5 am with cars leaving and arriving. He advised of not getting a satisfactory response from the owner of the property. Mr Kirby advised that he also wrote on 3 occasions to Mrs MacGregor. He explained that he first wrote on 8 June 2016 and received no response. He advised that he sent another letter on 21 June 2016 and enclosed a copy of the first letter. He stated that for a while he noted a reduction in the use of the taxis up and down the drive for a short time but they then resumed again. He confirmed that he received no response to his second letter of complaint. He advised that they were approached in person by Mrs MacGregor and a number of comments were made that they were not happy about. He advised that he wrote again to the Operators on 28 June 2016 and asked them to cease operating their taxis and causing a nuisance and to prevent employees and owners of Kilcreggan Taxis or any other person owning property from which their business operates from approaching them inappropriately at their home. He said that since the 3 letters were sent the attitude of the drivers has changed fundamentally. He referred to his letter of objection to this application which detailed a campaign of harassment, intimidation and aggression towards them. He advised that some of these issues were still under investigation by the Police and were not resolved at this time. He referred to an incident of road rage when one of the taxi drivers followed his wife back home after she had dropped him off at a friend’s house. He advised that the taxi driver approached his wife and called her “a waste of space”. He confirmed that his wife has video evidence of this incident and that it has been reported to the Police. He advised that he believed that a reasonable resolution and compromise could be reached and asked the Committee that if they were minded to grant this application to consider applying a condition prohibiting all taxis owned and operated by Mrs MacGregor from approaching within 35 metres of their dwelling, this being the distance along the private drive from their home to the public road. He also asked that if this application was refused, the Committee agree to have this restriction applied to the existing Private Hire Operator Licences currently held by Mrs MacGregor. He referred to a campaign of harassment they have been subjected to by the drivers and referred to their complaints not being addressed by the taxi owners and stated that they were not trying to ensure people lost their jobs or to stop the business from operating. He referred to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act and to Guidance on Private Hire Licences and advised that licences should not be granted if there is no significant unmet demand. He advised that he did not believe there was this level of demand. He advised that he had calculated the population of nearby villages and stated that in Rosneath there was one car serving a population of 780 people. He added that for Kilcreggan and Cove there were two cars for a population of 1340 and suggested that Kilcreggan and Cove were already served better than Rosneath. He advised that there was one car in Garelochhead serving a population of 2,610. He advised that he could not see any argument in respect of demand for the service and that there were no grounds for granting this licence as the community was already served well by the existing taxis. He said that the trend in population was flat and he asked the Committee to either restrict this licence by way of condition or reject on the grounds of lack of demand.

Questions from Applicant

Mr MacGregor asked Mr Kirby to confirm if there were any taxis registered at Woodlands. Mr Kirby replied that he did not have that information as he has not had sight of the applications submitted to the Council for the other Private Hire Car Licences. He advised that from the evidence they have seen and the fact that they have written 3 letters of complaint about the taxis, they believed that there were taxis operating from Woodlands.

Mr MacGregor asked Mr Kirby if the Police had objected to this application. Mr Kirby advised that there was currently an ongoing investigation which he was prevented from talking about at this hearing.

Before inviting questions from Members, the Chair referred to Mr Kirby’s comments about unmet demand and invited Ms Connelly to confirm the Council’s position in this respect. Ms Connelly confirmed that Argyll and Bute Council only applied the principles of unmet demand to Taxi Operator Licences and not to Private Hire Car Licences.

Members’ Questions

Councillor Trail sought and received confirmation from Mr MacGregor that one of their drivers, Mr Crawford, resided at Woodlands. He explained that the property he rented was served by the communal driveway and that Mr Crawford had the taxi Monday to Friday 7.30 am – 5.00 pm. He said that Mr Crawford’s brother-in-law also lived at the property and that he had learning difficulties. He stated that Mr Crawford on occasion drove up and down the driveway to and from his work and on occasion to visit his brother-in-law at lunchtime. He confirmed that Mr Crawford did not operate the business from his home.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr Kirby that it was not only Mr Crawford that used the driveway. He advised that the driveway was also used by Mr and Mrs MacGregor, by Mr Crawford and by 2 other taxi drivers. He advised that the cars were regularly maintained and washed at Mr Crawford’s home. He stated that at least 5 different drivers used the 2 cars and that they regularly drove back and forward from Mr Crawford’s home and sat in the drive waiting for calls from customers. He stated that from what he has observed the business operation has moved to Woodlands East. He referred to Mr Crawford owning his own residential car and he confirmed that he had no objection to Mr Crawford using his own car on the driveway. He referred again to the nuisance caused by the taxi drivers and stated that he had never complained to the Council before about anything.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mr MacGregor that one of the other taxi drivers was Mr Crawford’s brother so on occasion he did visit Mr Crawford. He also confirmed that on occasion he and Mrs MacGregor would call on Mr Crawford at this home. He stated that the business was not operated from there.

Councillor McCuish referred to Mr Kirby’s statement in his letter of objection regarding incidents of assault and breach of the peace and the suggestion that Mr and Mrs MacGregor were delaying meeting with the Police until after this application was processed. He noted that no objection to this application had been submitted by Police Scotland and asked Mr Kirby to comment. Mr Kirby advised that he had spoken to the Police and they were aware of these incidents.

Councillor McCuish also asked Mr MacGregor to comment. Mr MacGregor advised that he was not aware of any investigation. He advised that he had spoken to the Sergeant at the Police Licensing Department and as far as he could see there was no ongoing investigation into the allegations made by Mr Kirby.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr MacGregor that the current Private Hire Car Licences were registered at Willow Lodge and that there were none registered at Woodlands East.

Councillor Freeman referred to a solicitor letter dated 17 June 2016 which advised that Mr Crawford now parked his taxi 200 metres from his home and asked Mr MacGregor if this was still the case. Mr MacGregor confirmed that Mr Crawford was parking his taxi and walking up and down his driveway.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr MacGregor that the request made by Mr Kirby to prevent taxis etc coming closer than 35 metres from his home was unacceptable. Mr MacGregor pointed out that this was a communal driveway and there were no restrictions placed on its use. He advised that Mr Crawford used the driveway to reach customers homes further up the road and that the driveway was used by Mr and Mrs Crawford to access their own property. He stated that the access road was a good quality road and that he did not see a need for restrictions to be placed on it.

Councillor Robert MacIntyre sought and received confirmation from Mr Kirby that there was an Operator Licence in Rosneath.

Councillor Neil MacIntyre sought and received confirmation from Mr Kirby that a young couple with one child and an elderly widow lived further up the driveway.

Councillor Neil MacIntyre sought and received confirmation from Mr MacGregor that their drivers took their own calls from customers and that there was no operator centre as such. Summing Up

Objector

Mr Kirby advised that the statement made by Mr MacGregor that only one person used the driveway was not true. He said that the driveway was regularly used by Mr Denny, Mr Crawford, Mr and Mrs MacGregor and another taxi driver. He advised that they see both taxi cars up and down the road regularly at all times of the day and night. He referred to the late submissions tabled at the meeting and stated that they were not giving enough time to consider the contents of these late submissions. He referred to Mr MacGregor admitting that the drivers operated the business themselves and stated that this was consistent with what they have observed as they regularly see the drivers sitting outside taking calls. He stated that this did not just happen between 9 – 5 pm. He advised that on Friday night Mr Crawford was operating his taxi at 7 pm. He referred to Mr Crawford leaving his car 200m away and he advised that Mr Crawford drove down to collect his taxi which was parked 200m away and that he then drove his taxi back up to his house. He advised that they lived next to the drive and see the taxi drivers up and down the road all the time. He advised that the suggestion that the other property owners regularly used the taxis was not true.

He asked that legal restrictions be placed on this licence and if it was not possible to do this he asked that the Committee reject the application as there is no evidence of an increase in demand.

Applicant

Mr MacGregor advised that this hearing was to consider an application for a new vehicle and not a renewal or to consider other vehicles or licences. He advised that they wished to bolster resilience and meet demand. He advised that their company was well regarded and very busy and that they wished to continue to serve the community as best they could.

When asked both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.

Debate

Ms Connelly advised Councillor Freeman that she was not aware if a copy of insurance documents and the MOT certificate had been received from the Applicant. She confirmed that until the Council were in receipt of these the licence would not be granted. Ms Connelly also confirmed to Councillor Freeman that the demand survey carried out applied to Taxi Operator Licences and not to Private Hire Car Licences.

Councillor Freeman referred to comments made about an ongoing Police investigation and asked if the Committee could ask for a report from the Police before making a decision on this application. Ms Connelly advised that the Police had been asked and had not raised any concerns about this application.

Councillor McCuish advised that if the Police had any concerns about this application he was sure they would have made a representation. He advised that the Committee were just here to consider the application for a licence and nothing else. Councillor Colville noted that applications for Private Hire Car Licences only came to the Committee for consideration if there were objections and that applications for Taxi Operator Licences were always referred to the Committee regardless of whether there were objections or not.

Councillor Robert MacIntyre referred to there just being one Private Hire Car Licence in Rosneath and commented that very recently there used to be two. He stated that this licence would not be increasing the numbers usually held on the peninsula and could not see why there should be an objection to it.

Councillor Trail advised that there were two separate issues here. There was the application for the Private Hire Car Licence and there was the issue regarding disturbance and abusive behaviour which he advised was a matter for the Police and not licensing. He stated that he had no issue with granting this licence.

Councillor McNaughton moved that the application be granted and this was seconded by Councillor Neil MacIntyre.

Decision

The Committee agreed to grant a Private Hire Car Licence to Mrs MacGregor.

Councillor Freeman, having moved 2 amendments which failed to find seconders, asked that his dissent from the foregoing decision be recorded.

Present: Councillor Alex McNaughton (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Rory Colville Councillor James McQueen Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Neil MacIntyre

Attending: Sergeant Iain McNicoll, Police Scotland Sergeant Martin Balkeen, Police Scotland Kate Connelly, Solicitor Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager Toby Burnett, Applicant

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillor Robin Currie, Councillor David Kinniburgh, Councillor Alistair MacDougall, Councillor Robert Graham MacIntyre, Councillor Donald MacMillan and Councillor Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest intimated.

3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A STREET TRADER'S LICENCE (T BURNETT, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application once he confirmed he was happy with his understanding of the procedure.

Applicant

Mr Burnett explained that he was hoping to start a small mobile snack bar located on the Lochavullin Estate in Oban but understands that Police Scotland were required to notify the Committee of his past conviction.

Police Scotland

Sergeant McNicol read out the contents of a letter which advised that the Chief Constable wished to make a representation in respect of a conviction received by the Applicant on 10 June 2013. The circumstances surrounding the conviction were in respect of an incident which took place on 15 March 2013 and the details of this were read out to the Committee.

Sergeant McNicol confirmed that this was not an objection but a representation as it was felt appropriate that these matters be brought to the Committee’s attention for consideration and advised the Committee that the Applicant did declare his offence on his licence application.

Members’ Questions

Councillor Rory Colville sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that his licence would only permit him to operate from the single location at Woodrows Building at the Lochavullin Estate.

Summing Up

Police Scotland

Sergeant McNicol reiterated that Police Scotland had no objections to the application and were only present to make the Committee formally aware of Mr Burnett’s past conviction.

Applicant

Mr Burnett expressed remorse from his conviction and conformed to the Committee that he had no intention to commit an offence again.

When asked both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.

Decision

The Committee agreed to grant a Street Traders Licence to Mr Burnett.

Present: Councillor Alex McNaughton (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Rory Colville Councillor James McQueen Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail Councillor Neil MacIntyre

Attending: Kate Connelly, Solicitor Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager Thomas Simpson, Licence Holder Alexander Simpson, Licence Holder

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest intimated.

3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: SUSPENSION HEARING - TAXI CAR LICENCE NUMBER 756 (SIMPSON'S TAXIS, KAMES, TIGHNABRUAICH) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed.

It was noted that the complainant was not present and the Chair then invited the Licence Holder to speak in defence of their licence.

Licence Holder

Mr Alexander Simpson referred to his emailed letter sent in response to the complaint and wished to further add that he believed the screen shots of text messages submitted by the complainant had been altered so that they appeared out of sequence. Mr A Simpson then tabled copies of what he believed to be the true order of the messages for Members’ information.

Mr A Simpson advised that his son-in-law who spoke to the complainant on that night and his son who was operating the radio system between 6pm-9pm that evening could both confirm that he was waiting for the complainant at the agreed time and location at the gates of the holiday village in a licenced vehicle.

Mr Thomas Simpson expressed that he felt there was a lack of clarity in the complainant’s letter as to what the complaint was actually about. He reiterated his concerns that the business has only been in operation for approximately 4 years and in that relatively short space of time has become a successful, well run business, with clean, well maintained and reliable cars and that individuals were trying to find fault where there was none. He explained that they would never consider picking up a fair paying passenger in an unlicensed car. He also expressed frustration that the complainant was not present at the hearing.

Members’ Questions

Councillor Rory Colville asked Mr T Simpson if he was able to gain access to the Holiday Village complex itself and he confirmed that a barrier pass was required to get into the site to access the static caravans which they do not possess so they can only gain access to the main reception area / main road. Mr A Simpson explained this is why he told the complainant that he was only able to pick them up from the bus stop on the main road just before the barrier entrance.

Summing Up

Mr A Simpson expressed that he felt they had done nothing wrong and at first when they had heard of the complaint thought that it must be down to a simple misunderstanding but now feel that they have been directly targeted by someone who is trying to put them out of business.

Councillor Neil MacIntyre commented that the fact that the complainant was not present and everyone from Simpson’s Taxis was spoke for itself.

Decision

The Committee agreed not to suspend Simpson’s Taxi Car Licence.

(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted) MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the MARRIAGE SUITE, HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND CIVIC CENTRE, 38 EAST CLYDE STREET, HELENSBURGH on WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2016

Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)

Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor George Freeman Councillor Roderick McCuish Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor Neil MacIntyre Councillor James McQueen Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Richard Trail

Attending: Patricia O’Neill, Central Governance Manager Ross McLaughlin, Development Manager Richard Kerr, Major Applications Team Leader

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Gordon Blair, Rory Colville and Councillor Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Roderick McCuish, Donald MacMillan and Richard Trail declared a non- financial interest in planning application references 16/01846/PP and 16/01920/PP which are dealt with at items 5 and 6 of this Minute as they represent the Council at ACHA Board meetings.

Councillor Neil MacIntyre also declared a non-financial interest in these applications as he represents the Council on ACHA’s Area Committee for Oban, Lorn and the Isles.

Councillor George Freeman also declared a non-financial interest in these applications as he has expressed his support for these applications.

They all left the room and took no part in the discussion of these applications.

The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to vary the order of business and move item 9 on the Agenda (Update on Recent Scottish Government Planning Appeal Decisions) to the end of the meeting. It was noted that this report would be taken in public. It was further noted that confidential information would be tabled to the Committee in respect of this item and at that point the Chair would move the exclusion of the press and public.

3. MINUTES

a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 September 2016 was approved as a correct record.

b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 September 2016 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 September 2016 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record.

4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW

In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the local authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The fares were last reviewed by Members on 21 October 2015 and took effect on 25 January 2016. Consideration was given to a report seeking approval of the commencement of the next review of taxi fares and other charges.

Decision

The Committee agreed:-

1. to commence the review of fares in order that this can be completed within the 18 months required in terms of the Act;

2. that the consultation required in terms of the Act will be in writing; and

3. to note that the matter will be on the agenda for the Head of Governance and Law’s annual liaison meetings with the taxi operators for informal discussion and that Members will be advised accordingly of the outcome of these meetings.

(Reference: Report by Head of Governance and Law, submitted)

Having previously declared an interest in the following 2 planning applications, Councillors Freeman, McCuish, Neil MacIntyre, MacMillan and Trail left the room.

5. ARGYLL COMMUNITY HOUSING ASSOCIATION: ERECTION OF 24 FLATS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: LAND WEST OF CATALINA AVENUE, OBAN (PHASE 11) (REF: 16/01846/PP)

The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. Planning permission is sought for erection of 24 flats comprising two blocks of 12 within the Glenshellach Housing Development in Oban. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site forms part of a wider Housing Association Area H-AL 5/3 which has been approved for an overall housing development of 90 units, with a requirement of 25% of those to be provided as affordable units. To date permissions have been granted for a total of 78 units within the housing allocation and this application represents the final phase of development within the housing allocation and will bring the total number of units within the allocation to 102. There have been no objections received from statutory consultees but the proposal has elicited 55 representations which is sufficient justification for a local hearing being convened prior to the determination of this application.

Decision

The Committee agreed to hold a pre determination hearing at the earliest opportunity. (Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 10 October 2016, submitted)

6. ARGYLL COMMUNITY HOUSING ASSOCIATION: ERECTION OF 12 DWELLINGHOUSES INCLUDING ASSOCIATED ROADS, CAR PARKING, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING: LAND ADJACENT TO HAYFIELD, OBAN (REF: 16/01920/PP)

The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. Planning permission is sought for erection of 12 dwelling houses on an area of land to the east of the established Hayfield development within the Glenshellach area of Oban. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site forms part of a wider Housing Allocation Area H-AL 5/4 which has been approved for an overall housing development of 11 units with a requirement of 25% of those to be provided as affordable units. A further application for 6 additional units within the allocation to the south of the current site is due to be submitted to the Planning Service for consideration. There have been no objections received from statutory consultees but the proposal has elicited 43 representations which is sufficient justification for a local hearing being convened prior to the determination of this application.

Decision

The Committee agreed to hold a pre determination hearing at the earliest opportunity.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 6 October 2016, submitted)

Councillors Freeman, McCuish, Neil MacIntyre, MacMillan and Trail returned to the meeting.

7. MR ANTONY CASCI: ERECTION OF GARDEN FENCE (RETROSPECTIVE): GLENASKEL, 16 FERNOCH DRIVE, LOCHGILPHEAD (REF: 16/01944/PP)

The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. This application is being reported to Committee as it has been made by a Council employee within Development and Infrastructure Services. The application seeks retrospective permission for a garden fence which has already been erected. The fence measures 2.25m in height and encompasses three sides of the rear garden to the property and separates the dwelling from neighbouring properties. The enclosure of the garden has been prompted in response to a medical condition suffered by the applicant’s daughter. The privacy that will result from screening the rear garden area will allow her to feel safe and secure in an outside space and her quality of life will be considerably enhanced. A third party representation has been submitted objecting to the impact of the fence on day and sun lighting to conservatory along the side of an adjacent bungalow, which has side facing windows close to the boundary with the fence. Road safety concerns have also been raised. The Area Roads Officer has visited the site and has satisfied himself that no pedestrian/vehicle conflict will arise as a result of the presence of the fence. The development is considered consistent with the Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Supplementary Guidance associated with Policy LDP 9 of the adopted Local Development Plan and it is recommended that planning permission be approved retrospectively and unconditionally.

Motion

To agree to grant planning permission unconditionally.

Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor Neil MacIntyre

Amendment

To agree to hold a formal site inspection in advance of determining this application.

Moved by Councillor Donald MacMillan, seconded by Councillor George Freeman

The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 5 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

Decision

The Committee agreed to hold a formal site inspection in advance of determining this application.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 4 October 2016, submitted)

8. DAWNFRESH FARMING LIMITED: EXPANSION OF FISH FARM TO COMPRISE 10 NO. 80M CIRCUMFERENCE CAGES AND INCREASE IN EXTENT OF MOORING AREA (NO INCREASE IN BIOMASS): PORT NA MINE FISH FARM (ETIVE 3), INVERAWE, LOCH ETIVE (REF: 16/01971/MFF)

The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1 which detailed an objection from Connel Community Council and provided the names of further representations both for and against the application. The application relates to a rainbow trout farm which has been in place in Loch Etive for more than 20 years, having been originally consented under the Crown Estate leasing process. The site is currently consented for 10 No. 60 m diameter cages plus feed equipment rafts. Notwithstanding that, there appears to have been a transition subsequently to 70m diameter cages and this has not been subject of the necessary application(s) for planning permission. The Applicant’s contend that the 70m cages were installed in 2013. This proposal retains the surface equipment in similar location and alignment to that of the original farm but proposes an enlarged mooring grid to contain the larger cages and to introduce separation between cages. There is no biomass increase proposed. There have been no objections received from the key consultees, namely SEPA, SNH and Marine Scotland. The site is within the Taynuilt Community Council area and no response has been received from them. General concerns have been expressed by Ardchattan Community Council and an objection has been received from Connel Community Council. The proposal has elicited a large body of representation both for and against, which would normally warrant a hearing being convened. However, Members have held two previous hearings in relation to other proposals submitted by the same Applicant which have afforded the Committee the opportunity to become acquainted with the existing aquaculture development in Loch Etive (including the current site). These hearings on both occasions allowed the Members to hear of the Applicant’s operations and future plans and to hear of the concerns expressed by Friends of Loch Etive. A large proportion of the representations received have come from addresses outwith Argyll. The material considerations in this case are relatively straightforward, particularly in the absence of a stated intention not to increase biomass, and the positions of supporters and objectors are clear and are generally reflective of stances adopted in relation to those previous cases considered at hearings. Despite the weight of representation, it is not considered that the holding of a hearing in this case would add particular value to the determination process in this case. The proposal satisfies development plan policy, supplementary guidance relating to aquaculture and the non-statutory Loch Etive ICZM plan and is recommended for approval subject to conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.

Decision

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than wholly in accordance with the following plans and details unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for a non-material amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997:

 Application Form dated 29.07.16;  Plan 1 of 10 – application site boundary 1:25,000;  Plan 2 of 10 – existing equipment 1:5,000;  Plan 3 of 10 – proposed equipment 1:5,000  Plan 4 of 10 – proposed moorings 1:5,000;  Plan 5 of 10 – Admiralty chart indicating mooring containment area 1:5,000;  Plan 6 of 10 – bathymetry 1:5,000;  Plan 7 of 10 – proposed equipment on aerial photography 1:20:000;  Plan 8 of 10 – flotation ring, handrailing and top net support NTS;  Plan 9 of 10 – cage group plan and elevation NTS;  Plan 10 of 10 – proposed equipment 1:1000.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

2. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 and Class 21F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2012, the stocking of the farm hereby approved shall be limited to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) only and the site shall not be used for the stocking of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar).

Reason: The application has only assessed the environmental impacts of the site on the basis of it being used exclusively for the farming of rainbow trout. In the absence of the assessment of the site in the light of stocking for the on-growing of Atlantic salmon, the environmental consequence of the use of the site for this alternative species would be uncertain, and appropriate mitigation has not been identified, to the detriment of nature conservation interests.

3. The maximum biomass to be held at the site shall not at any time exceed 458.4 tonnes and production records shall be maintained for inspection as required by the Planning Authority.

Reason: The application has only been assessed on the basis of maximum biomass not exceeding that permitted in relation to the operation of the existing farm. Any future intended increase in biomass would require to be considered separately, having regard to the effect of that increase upon wild fish interests, in the interests of nature conservation.

4. The seabed moorings for the farm herby permitted shall be micro-sited within the application red in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The micro-siting shall have regard to the avoidance of tall seapen Funiculina quadrangualris and key sea angling marks, and the details submitted shall include evidence of steps taken to identify locations free of the presence of tall seapen and confirmation of consultation undertaken with established commercial sea angling operators on the loch, the identities of which shall be agreed in advance with the Planning Authority. Moorings shall be installed in accordance with the duly approved details, or any subsequent variation thereof as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the extended mooring arrangements for the farm do not compromise locations of biodiversity or commercial angling importance, in the interests of nature conservation and to avoid unnecessary conflict with recreational fishing interests.

5. Notwithstanding the submission of the Otter Habitat Survey (2014), prior to the re- equipment of the site as permitted, the area subject of that survey shall be re- surveyed for the presence of otter holts and resting places. The findings of that survey shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and in the event that the survey concludes that the development poses a risk of disturbance to otter of significance beyond that identified in the original survey, mitigation measures shall be identified and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall thereafter be implemented during the re-equipment of the site.

Reason: Having regard to the need for a pre-development survey for the presence of otter in the light of the age of the submitted survey accompanying the application, in the interests of nature conservation.

6. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body. 7. In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation, the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the carrying out of all measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

8. All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

9. The finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface including surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non-reflective and finished in a dark recessive colour in accordance with colour schemes to be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority (by way of BS numbers or manufacturer’s specifications), unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

10. No deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices shall be permitted at the site unless the model intended for use and the means of its use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Thereafter deployment shall only take place in accordance with the duly approved details unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

Having moved an amendment which failed to find a seconder, Councillor George Freeman asked for his dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 11 October 2016, submitted, and supplementary report number 1 dated 18 October 2016, tabled)

9. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION - RELAXATION OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

The Scottish Government is seeking views on proposed changes to ‘permitted development’ rights to erect and/or install mobile telecommunications infrastructure under Class 67 of the GPDO. A report detailing the recommended response to this consultation was before the Committee for consideration. Decision

The Committee agreed to note and endorse the responses set out within the report to the 25 questions presented and authorised that this response be sent to the Scottish Government as part of the consultation process.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, submitted)

10 (a) UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS Consideration was given to a report summarising the outcome of three recent appeal decisions by the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals relative to application references 15/03004/PP – erection of 2 dwelling houses and formation of vehicular access at Land East of Shira Lodge, Main Road, Cardross; 15/03005/LIB – Listed Building Consent for partial demolition of boundary wall to facilitate construction of vehicular access at Land East of Shira Lodge, Main Road, Cardross; and 15/02607/PP – Modification of Fish Farm 10 No. 80m Circumference Cages to 12 No. 80m Circumference Cages Including Increase in Extent of Mooring Area (No Increase in Biomass) at Sailean Ruadh (Etive 6), Loch Etive.

Decision

The Committee noted the contents of the report.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, submitted)

The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

10 (b) UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS Consideration was given to correspondence received from the Chief Executive of Houses for Heroes Scotland and also to external legal advice.

Decision

The Committee noted the contents of the letter and the legal advice received.

(Reference: Letter dated 14 October 2016 from Chief Executive of Houses for Heroes Scotland, tabled) MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the KAMES RECREATION HALL, KAMES, TIGHNABRUAICH, ARGYLL, PA21 2AF on TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2016

Present: Councillor Roderick McCuish (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Robert G MacIntyre Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Robin Currie Councillor James McQueen Councillor George Freeman Councillor Richard Trail

Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Steven Gove, Planning Officer David Love, Area Team Leader – Bute and Cowal Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles Michelle MacLean, Applicant Ewan MacLean, Applicant Felicity Coleman, Stewart Associates – Applicants’ Agent Don McInnes, Kilfinan Community Council – Consultee Ronnie Irvine, Objector Councillor Bruce Marshall, Objector Councillor Alex McNaughton, Objector Reverend David Mitchell, Objector

The Head of Governance and Law advised that as the Chair of the Committee was unable to attend today and the Vice Chair had previously declared an interest in this application, he was required to ask the Committee to nominate another Member to serve as Chair at today’s hearing. The Committee unanimously agreed to nominate Councillor Roderick McCuish to serve as the Chair.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors David Kinniburgh, Neil MacIntyre and Sandy Taylor.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Alex McNaughton declared a non-financial interest in this application as he had submitted a representation advising of his objection to the proposal. Councillor McNaughton took no part in the decision taken by the Committee.

3. MR EWAN MACLEAN: ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE OF SHOP TO FORM RESIDENTIAL FLAT: PRESENT AND BYGONES SHOP, TIGHNABRUAICH (REF: 16/01595/PP)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. Thereafter the Head of Governance and Law outlined the procedure that would be followed and identified those present who wished to speak. PLANNING

Steven Gove presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. He advised that the application before Members for consideration today was for the alteration and change of use from a shop to a residential flat.

The property is the former Present and Bygones Antique Shop that is located in the row of commercial properties situated at the centre of the village of Tighnabruaich. The village (in association with Kames) is one of Argyll and Bute’s Key Rural Settlements as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. Under Policy LDP DM 1, developments up to and including medium scale will be encouraged in this type of settlement. The current application relates to a small-scale development.

The application has attracted objections from a total of 13 sources, including Councillor Alex McNaughton; the Kilfinan Community Council; and the Tighnabruaich and District Development Trust. The main points of objection are as follows:

 The proposed alterations to the frontage of the unit would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of what is essentially a commercial centre;  The proposed change from retail to residential would undermine the recent improvements to the centre of the village, including the units being painted; a good occupancy rate with commercial-type ventures; the addition of flower boxes; and the installation of a jetty;  Insufficient marketing of the property for retail or commercial purposes was carried out. This particular row of buildings is relatively unique in that it represents the most substantial built development on the shore side of the road in Tighnabruaich. It is characterised by commercial-type uses on the ground floor and upper floor residential units.

In terms of the impact of the proposal upon the built environment, at present there is a single window and a door on the front elevation with a window and door on the rear elevation.

Internally, there is a front shop area; a rear shop area and a small WC. The size of the window opening on the front elevation will not be altered as a result of the conversion but a new upvc window with a top hopper will be installed. A new single leaf entrance door will also be installed on the front elevation. At the rear, the window will be replaced by patio doors and the door will be replaced with an upvc window.

Internally, there will be a living room/kitchen; a bedroom; and a wet room incorporating a toilet.

It is considered that, purely from a visual perspective, the proposed alterations to the front elevation will not change the appearance to such an extent that the unit would obviously look like a residential flat. The rear elevation is particularly visually inconspicuous with the consequence that the proposed alterations would have a negligible impact. In terms of the impact upon retailing, the principal policy within the Local Development Plan relative to retailing is Policy LDP 7. This proposes that the Council will support development proposals that seek to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of our established town centres in Argyll and Bute. This support includes retail, commercial, and other developments where the scale is appropriate to the size and function of the settlement.

For more detailed advice, Supplementary Guidance SG LDP RET 5 is relevant. This addresses the change of use of shops outwith the main town centres, such as in the case of Tighnabruaich. The explanation of the policy objectives advanced in SG LDP RET 5 is stated as follows:

“Changes in peoples’ shopping habits have resulted in an increasing reliance on car- related, out of town centre shopping development and a gradual loss of local/village shops. Such changes can undermine communities and disadvantage people who do not have ready access to private cars. This is especially the case when the shop under threat of closure is the last in the settlement/village.

These guidelines are intended to help minimise the loss of local shopping facilities and accords with the concept of sustainable development.”

The main thrust of the guidance is that the Council will only permit the change of use of shops (Use Class 1) outside designated town centres in either of two circumstances:

• That day-to-day local convenience shopping provision/post office is available in the same community or in close proximity to; OR

• That all reasonable steps over a period of 12 months have been taken to market the property as a retail concern.

In terms of the first criteria, there is a Post Office to the immediate south west of the application site and the local convenience shop (‘Spar’) is located two doors away in a north-easterly direction. On this basis, it is clear that there is day-to-day convenience shopping provision within the same community and the proposed change of use would not prejudice this arrangement.

As regards the second criteria, it is understood that the applicant bought the premises when it was vacant and he placed a notice in the front window which advised that the property was available to let with a contact number. He states that there was only one approach and this was for a ‘pop up’ shop over one weekend. The period over which this particular marketing took place appears to have been in excess of 12 months.

By assessing the proposal purely against the two stated criteria, the intended change of use would meet the terms of SG LDP RET 5. However, as mentioned previously, the application has raised the profile of the unit with comments from members of the public, one of the local Councillors, the Tighnabruaich and District Development Trust and the Kilfinan Community Council. The Department has a degree of sympathy with some of the points that have been made, in particular the success of the visual improvements that have recently taken place in the row of commercial properties and the relatively high level of occupation of these properties. There is, understandably, a feeling of civic pride in what has been achieved. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised over the potential loss of the vacant unit for retail purposes, if one accepts the comments made on behalf of the applicant, there would appear to have been virtually no interest in the property over at least a 12 month period. Given that all of the objectors appear to be from the Tighnabruaich area, it is highly likely that they would have seen the notice on the window yet there is no evidence to suggest that they proactively approached the applicant.

The situation remains that, given the current raised profile of the vacant unit, it would still be possible for a potential owner or tenant to come forward with a proposal to retain the retail use. It would obviously be in the hands of the applicant as to whether to accept such an approach. However, the Council is in the position of having to adjudicate upon an application for Planning Permission and, as detailed earlier, there is no compelling retail policy reason to decline this particular proposal.

The final assessment relates to the impact of the proposal upon road safety and parking. The row of commercial properties in the village centre within which the application site is located primarily relies upon on-street parking – there is very little off-street parking available in the backlands of these properties.

Supplementary Guidance policy SG TRAN 6 requires that car parking is provided in accordance with the standards set out within the Local Development Plan. This requires the provision of 1.5 spaces per one bedroom flatted unit. The floor space of the existing retail unit is approximately 30 square metres which equates to a single car parking space under the Local Development Plan car parking standards.

In normal circumstances, adequate off-street parking or communal parking should be provided adjacent to all new development to ensure that vehicles are not parked on the road where they may impede traffic flow or cause a hazard. There are circumstances, however, where a degree of flexibility can be afforded and these include where the proposed development is adjacent to, and well served by, good public transport and pedestrian links.

In this particular case, there is a theoretical shortfall of 0.5 parking spaces. Given this relatively minor shortfall; the location of the property with good public transport and pedestrian links; and the absence of an objection from the Area Roads Manager, it is considered that the proposal can be justified as a minor departure from the relevant Development Plan policy and Supplementary Guidance.

Having examined the key issues in this presentation, there are no other considerations that would result in the application being considered unacceptable.

APPLICANT

Felicity Coleman of Stewart Associates spoke on behalf of the Applicant. She advised that they had been approached by Mr and Mrs MacLean after their initial pre application inquiry. She confirmed that they wished to convert a shop into an accessible living space. With the aid of presentation slides she pointed out the existing plans and elevations. She explained that this would be a simple renovation involving the removal of 2 walls and a porch door and changing a window into a door. She then showed the proposed drawings and advised that the shop front would be retained. She confirmed that the windows and doors would be changed to UPVC and that inside there would be a WC, kitchen and bedroom. She stated that once the conversion was complete it would be possible to convert the residential dwelling back to a shop at any time. She advised that the proposal would have a minimal impact on the street and presented some photographs showing how the shop front would look once the shop signs were removed and the building was painted. She said that the property would benefit from any form of positive intervention and that there would be nothing to suggest that it was no longer a shop. She advised that her clients would be investing in the area by improving the look of the shop front by repairing and improving the fabric of the building similar to what had been already done in the village. She presented some photographs which showed some commercial properties in the village with no obvious shop frontage and stated that this property would be in keeping with the area and suggested that it would complement the existing street scape and comply with planning policy.

Michelle MacLean advised that the purpose of the proposal was to enable people with mobility problems to have access to much needed accessible accommodation in Tighnabruaich so that they could enjoy and benefit from what the area had to offer visitors. She stated that to try and find accommodation around Tighnabruaich which had disabled access was not easy.

CONSULTEES

Don McInnes, Chair of Kilfinan Community Council, advised of their objection to change the use of this shop into a residential property right in the middle of the shopping centre. He stated that this change of use was inappropriate and that they strongly objected to it. He referred to the Planner’s reasons for accepting this proposal and read out the recommendation to grant planning permission detailed in the report of handling. He referred to the proposal being recommended for approval as a ‘minor departure’ from the development plan and said that legally it was a requirement that planning applications should accord with development plan policies and that if they did not accord then they should be refused unless material considerations indicate that they should be approved. He advised that the Planning Officers were of the view that the material considerations made the proposal acceptable as a ‘minor departure’ and stated that the Community Council felt that this was not just a ‘minor departure’ but a ‘major departure’.

He referred to comments made that Tighnabruaich did not have a town centre and advised that he took issue with that and stated that Tighnabruaich clearly had an identified town centre and that this shop was in the middle of it. He advised that in normal circumstances in a town centre any proposal to change a shop to a residential dwelling would be declined. He advised that significant concerns had been expressed by the public and that one of the local Members had said that the loss of the retail unit would be highly regrettable.

He referred to the parking issue and advised that he took issue with the suggestion by Planning Officers that the village was served well by public transport links. He advised that there were only 4 buses a day and these travelled out of the village to Dunoon which was the nearest centre of commerce. He stated that local transport facilities in the village were pretty appalling.

He referred to the fact that the property had lain empty for over 12 months and advised that he had huge sympathy for the property owners. He advised that work was ongoing to have virtually all the shops up and running and stated that the Community Council were very keen to get together with the Applicants to fill their shop with a suitable business. He advised that he, the Community Council and the Development Trust were pretty sure that within the next 12 months they would be able find a suitable business which would enable the Applicants to get a return on their capital investment and that they would welcome the opportunity to work with the Applicants to enable this to happen.

He then questioned the suitability of the property to be turned into a residential unit and queried whether or not the Committee had been given a chance to view the rear of the building. He advised that at the rear of the property there was only 6 feet of ground available from the back door and due to the location of the property it would have no views across the Kyles and would virtually benefit from no sunlight. He stated that in terms of a residential unit he did not believe it would be a pleasant place to live.

He advised that the reason for objecting to this proposal was because they wished to retain the shop in a village which was currently thriving and expanding commercially. He referred to the Development Trust receiving investment from the Wind Farm, to the significant amount of work they had done to date with this investment and to their plans for further projects in Tighnabruaich. He advised that for this reason it was important to retain a good town centre and to make sure further investment was made to improve the village and town centre. He also advised of new events happening in the area such as the Cowal Way which was now open up to Glendaruel. He advised that this attracted more visitors to walk and cycle in the area. He commented on plans approved for 26 new affordable houses in the area which could bring 26 new families to the area. He referred to the Portavadie Marina putting pressure on the Council to make more housing available for their staff. He also referred to the award winning Kilfinan Community Forest which had plans for 5 new affordable houses and forest crofts which would also help further expand the community. He referred to the community expanding rapidly and said that there were now only 2 vacant retail units which he expected could be filled within the next 12 months. He added that the village would soon benefit from superfast broadband and advised that this was another reason to encourage people to come to the area.

He stated that it was important for rural communities in Argyll and Bute to expand and prosper and advised that the loss of one shop in this parcel of shops would have a detrimental impact on the village and that they were very keen to retain this property as a shop unit. He reiterated the Community Council’s desire to work with the Applicant to fill the shop with a suitable business within the next 12 months if the proposal was rejected.

OBJECTORS

Ronnie Irvine

Ronnie Irvine advised that he was Chair of the Tighnabruaich and District Development Trust and advised that a lot of the views he was about to express were not his own but the views of the Development Trust. He advised that he has lived and worked in Argyll all his life and has seen this type of thing happen in other villages. He advised that the biggest concern expressed by the community was that this process would start the balling rolling. He advised that they had nothing against the Applicants proposal and it was just because they were the first ones in the village of Tighnabruaich and there was fear that if this shop unit was changed to a residential dwelling it would start the ball rolling for others to follow.

He said that this was a young Development Trust now in their third year and their aim was to attract more businesses and young people to the village. He referred to all the work that has been carried out by the Trust over the last 18 months to improve the village including the installation of a jetty to enable yachtsmen to land. He advised of the opening of an information hub/heritage centre and explained that they were given the use of a shop unit free of charge for the season and following its success they were now in discussions with the owner of the shop to rent it. He said that there were more ways to rent a shop than to just stick a notice in a window.

He advised that the Applicants had shown no interest in opening a shop and that they had shown no interest in the Development Trust. He stated that all the other businesses had been very supportive.

He referred to the building of 26 new homes by ACHA and advised that there has been no new affordable housing in the area for a number of years.

He advised that a lot of people had contacted him to advise that they were not able to come to the meeting today. He stated that their main concern was that this proposal was the first one for a shop to be converted in the main row of shops and that other applications for change of use in the past involved shops occupying standalone properties. He confirmed that it was the location of the shop that was of main concern here.

He advised that he had sympathy for the Applicant but stated that there needed to be some form of a compromise. He asked the Committee to delay a decision on this proposal for 2 years to allow the property to be commercially advertised on the open market.

Councillor Bruce Marshall

The Committee were advised by the Head of Governance and Law that Councillor Marshall had not submitted a representation in respect of this application. He stated that the Committee could still hear from Councillor Marshall at their discretion. The Committee unanimously agreed that Councillor Marshall could give his presentation.

Councillor Marshall advised that he had only become aware of this application recently. He confirmed that he was now fully aware of all the objections that have been made. He advised that he came from a similar area and that the exact same situation had occurred in his village when the local grocers shop closed. He advised that a change of use was applied for to the National Park and that this had been approved. He said that the shop was now summer letting accommodation and that the shop had been lost to the village forever. He referred to Tighnabruaich being a lovely wee shopping centre. He referred to the Community Council and Development Trust both being forward looking and that a great deal of expansion had gone on in Tighnabruaich and Kames. He referred to the Portavadie Marina and said that the area was on the up. He advised that Tighnabruaich used to be a sleepy wee village but that this had now changed. He asked the Committee to listen to the many organisations and the many objectors and to refuse this application. Councillor Alex McNaughton

Councillor McNaughton advised that most of what he had to say had already been covered by others. He said that the Development Trust were very ambitious and had great ambitions for Tighnabruaich which had been crying out for this for years. He stated that the main industry to be targeted was tourism. He advised that tourism was about more than just views and that when tourists visited an area they also liked to have shops to visit. He confirmed that he supported the views and work of the Community Council; he supported the ambitions of the Development Trust; and that he totally objected to this change of use proposal.

Reverend David Mitchell

Reverend Mitchell advised that he was Chair of a Charitable Trust which had bought one of the shop premises last year. He referred to the lack of connections to the mains sewage system. He said that when applications were being made to build new houses Scottish Water were confirming that these dwellings could connect to the mains sewage system and that it was only when these houses were being built it became apparent that this was not possible. He advised that this property would have no space for a septic tank and would not be able to connect to the mains sewage system so would have to discharge into the sea.

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

Councillor Trail sought and received confirmation from Mr MacLean that his original intention for the shop was to open a whisky shop but after further investigations it became apparent that it would not be commercially viable.

Councillor Trail asked Mrs MacLean to explain further what her plans were for the property. Mrs MacLean advised that she wished to introduce a letting property for people with disabilities who have served in the armed forces and also for people suffering from cancer etc free of charge. She advised that she wished to give something back to society and explained that she has worked in welfare all her life. She advised that she believed a lot of people would benefit from coming to enjoy and relax in Tighnabruaich. She referred to it being very difficult to find accommodation in the area with disabled access.

Councillor Currie sought and received confirmation from Mr Gove that the reason the application was being recommended for approval as a ‘minor departure’ was due to the shortfall in car parking spaces. Mr Gove confirmed that the change of use proposal was acceptable in terms of retail policy and that the ‘minor departure’ related to the car parking standards which were explained in section S of the planning report dated 9 August 2016.

Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr McInnes that there were currently 2 vacant retails unit in the village. Mr McInnes confirmed that the Community Council would like the opportunity to work with the Applicants to find a suitable business to run from their shop so that they could receive a return on their capital investment. He also confirmed that the Community Council would be willing to offer this same assistance to the owner of the other vacant shop.

Councillor Colville asked Mr McInnes if he had any ideas for the type of business that could be run from this shop. Mr McInnes advised that he was a semi-retired cabinet maker and that he worked from home. He advised that he was currently assisting in the training of apprentices up at Kilfinan Community Forest and suggested that a business such as furniture restoration would work well in this shop. He advised that the skills the apprentices were currently learning could allow them to set up this type of business.

Councillor Colville asked Mr McInnes if he could see a link here for ex-service men. Mr McInnes replied that he was already working with ex-servicemen suffering from PTSD and that they were being taught new skills at the Community Forest.

Councillor Colville commented that he could see both sides of the argument and referred to the 2 shops lying vacant. Mr McInnes advised that over the last 8 or 9 months ongoing work has been done to develop the other shops. He commented that 2 years ago the village looked totally different to what it looked like now. He stated that the whole row of shops was currently being developed very nicely and that they wanted to keep this as a whole row of shops. He advised that the Community Council would be happy to work with the owners to secure a viable business.

Councillor Colville asked the Applicants if their application was granted would they be willing to discuss with the Community Council the possibility of finding a suitable business to run from their shop. Mrs MacLean explained her vision for the property. She advised that she felt she had a social responsibility to give something back to the community. She advised that if the change of use was granted she would promote the area to people with disability issues and that she would be happy to discuss this with the Community Council.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacLean that they had purchased the property in September 2014 and that it had lain vacant for 18 months prior to that date and had lain vacant ever since.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr McInnes that there were only 2 vacant shops and that one of these was double fronted and was in the process of being refurbished.

Councillor Freeman referred to the earlier site visit by the Committee and commented that apart from the Spar Shop and the Post Office the other shops did not appear to be open. Mr McInnes explained that most of the shops were open all weekend and closed on Mondays and Tuesdays instead.

Councillor Blair referred to the issue of lack of disabled access in the local hotels and sought comment from the Community Council. Mr McInnes confirmed that it was fair to say that it was difficult to find holiday accommodation in Tighnabruaich with suitable disabled access. He pointed out that the Portavadie Marina had easy access for disabled people. He advised that the issue of disabled access had never been raised with the Community Council before. He commented that the reason most of the hotels in Tighnabruaich did not have disabled access was because the properties were old historic buildings. He said that if this was an issue that needed further investigation then the Community Council would like to be involved.

Councillor Blair asked the Applicants to comment. Mrs MacLean advised that in light of the DDA Act that had come into force she was surprised that changes and adaptations had not been made to the hotels. Councillor Currie sought and received confirmation from Mr Gove that in terms of the Local Development plan Tighnabruaich was not designated as a town centre or commercial core. Mr Gove advised that towns like Campbeltown, Helensburgh Dunoon and Rothesay were designated as town centres and commercial cores where they sought to refuse ground floor flats in the commercial core.

Councillor Currie asked what other policies could be applied in this case. Mr Gove confirmed that the relevant policy was Supplementary Guidance RET 5 which referred to the change of use of shops out with the main town centres. He confirmed that the main thrust of the guidance is that the Council will only permit the change of use of shops outside the designated town centres in either of two circumstances: that day to day local convenience shopping provision/post office is available in the same community or close by; or that all reasonable steps have been taken over a period of 12 months to market the property as a retail concern. Mr Gove advised that based on the information supplied by the Applicant both sets of criteria had been met.

Councillor McCuish referred to the property lying vacant and sought comment from the Development Trust. Mr Irvine advised that the owners had a house in Tighnabruaich and it was his opinion that they should have known what they were buying into. He referred to other vacant shops and another person owning 5 properties in the village. He said that this person had big plans for his properties and had the best interests of the village at heart. Mr Irvine said that since the Applicants had purchased their property nothing had changed. He referred to the Applicants marketing their property and stated that to his knowledge the only advert was a notice in the shop window. He advised he did not believe it was advertised nationally and that the owner had simply ticked a box to meet the planning criteria for advertising.

Councillor McCuish sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacLean that if planning permission was granted the opportunity to have discussions with the Community Council and Development Trust would not be gone.

Councillor Currie asked Mr McInnes what the population of Tighnabruaich was. Mr McInnes advised that he believed it was around 800.

SUMMING UP

Planning

Steven Gove advised that this was a change of use for a vacant shop and in terms of the Local Development Plan Tighnabruaich was not identified as a town centre. Supplementary Guidance recognises that the changes in peoples’ shopping habits have resulted in an increasing reliance on car related, out of town centre shopping development and a gradual loss of local/village shops. In terms of the retail policy this proposal conforms to criteria and the only other issue is car parking which is considered a minor shortfall. He advised that the village had good public transport and pedestrian links and recommended that planning permission be granted as a ‘minor departure’ to the Local Development Plan. Applicant

Felicity Coleman confirmed that the Applicants wished to invest in the village and it was better to make these renovations than to have the shop lying empty. She said the proposal would visually improve the village. She advised of hearing of so many ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’ but had heard no clear evidence that this property would be viable as a shop. She advised that there would only be minor adaptations to the property.

Consultees

Don McInnes advised that he took exception to planning comments that Tighnabruaich was not a town centre. He stated that it may not be big but it was their town centre as it had shops and no residential accommodation. He advised that he also took exception to the statement that the village had good public transport links. He advised that there were no buses on a Sunday and that was a matter of fact. He stated that planning decisions should be about more than just ticking boxes. He said that if this planning application was granted what was there to stop anymore similar proposals coming forward. He advised that if this proposal was granted then the property could not be a shop anymore.

Objectors

Ronnie Irvine

Ronnie Irvine clarified to the Applicants’ Agent that he did not say the shop was not viable. He confirmed that he had said some businesses were not viable and that there was difference. He referred to the Planner’s comments that Tighnabruaich was not a town centre and stated that it was unfair to compare it to Helensburgh, Lochgilphead and Campbeltown as Tighnabruaich was a village. He advised that visitors to Tighnabruaich did not just come for the views, they also came to its shops and its commercial centre. He said that things have changed over the last 40 years and that 5 years ago things were a lot worse. He advised that Tighnabruaich was on the up. He referred to the transport links and said that when the buses came to Tighnabruaich they turned right and headed for Portavadie and the ferry. He advised that they never turned left into the village. He advised that the Doctor’s surgery was moved out of the village centre taking people away from the shops. He advised that the objectors’ main concern was that if this proposal was approved it would start the ball rolling for others to follow. He referred to having a similar decision to make about his own property in the future and stated that his was out with village centre.

Councillor Bruce Marshall

Councillor Marshall advised that everyone will have seen this morning what a stunning place this was. He referred to it being peaceful and quiet as it was getting towards the end of October. He advised that during the summer the place was jam packed with visits from the Waverley, visits from tour buses and yachters docking at the new jetty. He advised that the Portavadie Marina had also increased the footfall. He advised that Tighnabruaich has always been known as a town centre and that this was the shopping centre. He advised that the loss of one shop could lead to the loss of more. He asked the Committee to consider the points of view of the people that lived there and urged them to do the right thing. Councillor Marshall left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Alex McNaughton

Councillor McNaughton advised that he had nothing further to add.

Reverend David Mitchell

Reverend Mitchell advised that this was the wrong time to make this decision. He advised that the village was on the up and that the Development Trust was not long established and that it needed the opportunity to find other uses for this shop. He advised that he would recommend to his charity that they purchase the shop.

When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.

Councillor Alex McNaughton left the meeting at this point.

DEBATE

Councillor Freeman advised that he was always reluctant to see retail shops lost to a community. He stated that from what has been seen and heard today it is clear that this shop has lain empty for a number of years. He said that there did not appear to be a great deal of retail activity in the area. He advised that if a property has lain empty for some time he would prefer to see it occupied even if this meant a change of use to a residential dwelling.

Councillor Currie referred to the comment that Tighnabruaich had a population of around 800 and said that he was surprised that there were not more convenience stores than just the Spar and the Post Office for a population of this size. He advised of coming from an area where villages of a similar size had more convenience stores. He said that he felt quite sure that there was the potential in the village for more of these types of shops. He referred to material considerations and said that the views of the Community Council and the Development Trust were material considerations. He referred to the increase in affordable housing for the area which had been agreed by the Council through the Strategic Housing Investment Plan. He advised that he was minded to refuse this application.

Councillor Colville advised that he came from South Kintyre where 2 supermarkets served a population of 5,000. He referred to businesses such as Marks and Spencer now delivering shopping free of charge to homes provided the order was for over £100 and stated that times had changed. He referred to Councillor Currie’s comment that the views of the Community Council and Development Trust were material considerations and advised that he had heard a lot of ‘could bes’ and ‘possibilities’ but had heard nothing concrete which to him were not material considerations. He advised that he was inclined to support the planning recommendation.

Councillor Trail advised that he found this quite difficult. He advised that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Freeman about the property lying empty for over 3 years and said that there had been plenty of time for the community to take it on and run it but that had not happened. He said that he believed it would be better if the property was occupied rather than left to lie empty. He referred to comments made by the Community Council that if the change of use was granted that the property could never again be a shop. He confirmed that this was not the case because at any time a new application could be submitted with a proposal to change it back to a shop. He advised that he was inclined to support the planning recommendation.

Councillor Blair advised that he too felt this was a difficult application as he was aware of the vibrancy of the Community Council and the Development Trust. He said there was the potential here for cooperation between the Applicants and the Development Trust to address the issue of disabled access. He advised that he was minded to ask for a continuation to see if there was some way a business/action plan for such a facility could be drawn up by the Applicants and the Development Trust.

Councillor McCuish advised that the Committee were here to determine the application in planning terms. He advised that he understood the reasons for the application and also the reasons for objections to it. He said that he took comfort from the fact that the Applicants were still willing to work with the Community Council and he moved that the Application be granted.

Motion

To agree to grant planning permission as a ‘minor departure’ to the Local Development Plan subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.

Moved by Councillor Roderick McCuish, seconded by Councillor George Freeman.

Amendment

To agree to continue consideration of this application to seek advice on the terms of a competent Motion for refusal.

Moved by Councillor Robin Currie, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair.

The Motion was carried by 6 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

DECISION

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission as a ‘minor departure’ to the Local Development Plan subject to the following conditions and reasons:-

1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings:

Drawing No. 1616/P01 Drawing No. 1616/P02 Drawing No. 1616/P03 Drawing No. 1616/P04

unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

2. Prior to the installation of the new door on the front elevation of the premises, full details of the design of the door and the materials to be used in its construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the door shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and for the avoidance of doubt.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 9 August 2016, supplementary report number 1 dated 15 August 2016 and supplementary report number 2 dated 24 October 2016, submitted) MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held in the CONNEL VILLAGE HALL, MAIN STREET, CONNEL, ARGYLL, PA37 1PA on THURSDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2016

Present: Councillor David Kinniburgh (Chair)

Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Neil MacIntyre Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor George Freeman Councillor Alex McNaughton Councillor Alistair MacDougall Councillor James McQueen

Attending: Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law Ross McLaughlin, Development Manager Fiona Scott, Planning Officer Murdo MacLeod, Applicant David Campbell, Applicant’ Agent Roger Ashcroft, Connel Community Council – Consultee Ann Colthart, Objector Maud Marshall, Ann Colthart’s representative Councillor Elaine Robertson, Objector Sheila Tollan, Objector Douglas Small, Objector Barbara MacFarlane, Objector Councillor Iain MacLean, Objector Alasdair Carswell, Objector

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Robin Currie, Roderick McCuish, Robert G MacIntyre, Sandy Taylor and Richard Trail.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. MACLEOD CONSTRUCTION LTD: ALTERATIONS TO REAR FENESTRATION, INSTALLATION OF NEW FENESTRATION ON GABLE ELEVATION AND ERECTION OF WALL AND HEDGING ON NORTH EASTERN BOUNDARY: 12 ST ORAN'S PLACE (PLOTS 3 AND 4), CONNEL (REF: 16/02059/PP)

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and the Head of Governance and Law identified those present who wished to speak.

Councillor Iain MacLean, who had not submitted a written representation, advised that he would like to speak in support of the objectors. Mr Reppke also advised that a request had been made by the Objectors for a representation to be heard from Mr Carswell who was unable to be present at the start of the hearing. Mr Reppke further advised that Michael Russell MSP, who was unable to attend the hearing, had requested that a written submission by him be read out and considered by the Committee.

Mr Reppke confirmed to the Committee that it was at their discretion whether or not to allow the aforementioned representations to be heard.

The Committee unanimously agreed to allow Councillor MacLean to make a presentation to the Committee and that Mr Carswell could also make a presentation if he was present at the appropriate time.

The Committee also agreed to the written representation from Michael Russell being read out at the appropriate time. Councillor Freeman, having moved an amendment which failed to find a seconder, asked for his dissent from this decision to be recorded.

PLANNING

Ross McLaughlin presented the application on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. He advised that, consistent with all planning applications he was required to abide by The Town and Country Planning Act 1997 which requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The legislation also confirms that material considerations should be related to the development and use of land.

He advised that this local application submitted by M&K MacLeods was for design alterations to the rear of Plots 3 & 4, St Oran’s Place in Connel. He said that Members would have seen from their site inspection this morning, the Developer has been building out this significant development site in the village in a number of phases since around 2013 with some of the properties in Phase 1 now completed and occupied.

He then referred to a number of slides showing the layout and location of the development site

He stressed that this application purely related to proposed amendments to the rear of 2 substantially complete semi-detached dwellings in the south east of the development site. The principal of residential development on this site was well established and there existed previous permissions for housing development dating back to 2010.

He stated that the key relationship that Members would hear about today was in relation to the property called Duriehill, which they had visited this morning, and which was immediately to the north of the application properties. He pointed on a slide to a sizable extension that has been constructed onto southern side of Duriehill. He confirmed that this obtained planning permission and was constructed in around 2002.

He then presented a number of photographs depicting the site prior to construction taking place taken from approximately the driveway of the new properties looking north towards Duriehill. He advised that these were taken by the Planning Officer during his site inspection in 2009 which approved 16 houses and 4 flats. He also referred to an extract from the Local plan which highlighted the development site within the village boundary of Connel. To this extent there is a general presumption in favour of sustainable development subject to the policies and supplementary guidance in the plan.

He confirmed that applications need to be assessed against the policies of the local plan and other material considerations. One of these considerations being the planning history of the site. He advised that in this case there were a number of established permissions at the site dating back to submission in 2008. He then presented a slide showing the approved layout for 16 detached homes and 4 flats. He pointed out that the approved plan did not show the footprint of the constructed sunroom on Duriehill which was present at the time that this application was submitted.

He then presented a slide highlighting the most recent permission for the site which this current application sought to amend. Due to the economic downturn and change in market conditions it was unrealistic to sell the large detached properties so a phased development of smaller units was consented in 2014. He advised that down in the southern corner of the site the detached dwellings have been replaced by 2 story semi-detached properties. The application properties subject of this new proposal are plots 3 and 4. The developer has been building this phase and now completed plots 1 and 2 which are occupied. Plots 3&4 and 5&6 are also largely completed with roof tiles on.

Early in the summer this year, following a neighbour complaint, Officers identified a relationship conflict between Plots 3&4 and the existing property Duriehill. The Council’s Local Plan sets out Guidance for separation distances between properties and it was apparent that there were deficiencies.

When investigated it was found that the developer has built in accordance with their approved 2014 plans but notably the Planning Officers, during the assessment of the application, did not undertake a site visit and did not identify that Duriehill had the sunroom constructed which brings the property closer to the boundary than the layout plan suggests. This was contrary to normal operating procedure and a contributing factor in the separation distances being less than our guidelines would normally suggest. Senior Officers have apologised to the stakeholders involved and have been seeking to reach a proportionate and amicable outcome.

He stated that he would like to reiterate their apology to the occupier of Duriehill, Ms Colthart and also M&K MacLeods.

He advised that there were two key separation guidelines outlined in the Supplementary Guidance of the Local Development Plan. The thrust of this guidance is that distances should exceed 18m for direct window to window inter- visibility and a reduced standard of more than 12m for direct window to wall distance to resist overbearing or privacy concerns. He stressed that these were guidance and the text explicitly identified that these may be relaxed depending on site factors such as design or angle.

He advised that the new semi-detached property was 9.35m to the closest point of the sunroom of Duriehill. So it did fall short of these distances. He stressed this was at an angle and was not direct. He confirmed that Officers have sought to work progressively with all parties and have met both the occupant of Duriehill and developers at the site several times. This application is a result of those discussions and seeks to absolve all window to window and inter-visibility and privacy issues by relocating first floor rear windows to the side elevations at first floor level. This would be replaced with timber cladding. A similar design alteration is proposed for the ground floor where windows would also be replaced and moved to the side elevation although rear opaque glass would remain in the rear as a design feature.

The proposal also seeks to strengthen the current planting on the shared boundary which will also help screen between the two properties.

In summary the alterations from the approved plans are 3 fold – removal of functional rear windows, installation of new side openings and finally introduction of a 1m high wall and boundary planting.

He advised that Members had in front of them today alterations to this block of semis by removing the functionality of all rear windows. The first floor windows shall be relocated to the side elevations and the ground floor ones shall become opaque with patio doors added. The boundary wall and new planting will also strengthen the natural screening between both properties.

In terms of representations, he advised that the application was advertised and notified and there have been notable responses from the local community. There have been 48 registered objectors to the proposal which include Councillors Green, McKenzie, Horn and Robertson. The Community Council and MSP Michael Russell have also objected. A full list of the objectors and their concerns are listed in the planning reports but can be summarised as feeling the design amendments are out of character, would provide poor amenity to both Duriehill and new inhabitants of the semis, and considerations that the 1m high retaining wall and planting are inappropriate. There were also concerns expressed that the separation distances do not comply with standards and they are too close.

There has also been a variety of other comments that called for the building to be demolished which, he stressed was not the subject matter of this application. Other non-material objections were also raised about lighting and noise caused by the reconfiguration of the internal layouts of the new builds.

In terms of Officer assessment, it has been acknowledged that even with the proposed improvements to mitigate inter-visibility there is still a shortfall by around 2.7m between the properties in terms of the window to blank gable distance as outlined in the guidance in the local development plan. However, as the plan states there can be relaxations of these distances guidelines where circumstance permits.

In this case, Planners do find there are a number of material and mitigating factors and these were three fold:-

Firstly, the angle of view is acute. The properties do not directly face each other and the large sunroom at Duriehill has windows that face in multiple directions, not just across the site. Windows face across the garden of Duriehill and also towards the gable end of plot 5 which is set much further back. Even the closest window does not directly face the new building there is an angle that needs to be considered when considering overbearing impacts. Secondly, the difference in ground levels play a significant role. Duriehill sits almost a storey above the development site which means mass and scale of the semis feels much reduced. It also means that the ground floor windows of the new semis face the sloping ground level rather than the neighbouring property. Again the relationship is not direct.

Thirdly, the mitigation that is proposed is an improvement from what is currently approved and will eliminate all window to window conflicts. The erection of a new 1m retaining wall that will be back filled with soil and planted along the shared boundary will also act as natural screening between the 2 properties. He stated that it must be remembered that this site has been approved as a housing site for nearly 7 years and is now being constructed. The outlook from Duriehill was always going to change to one that was going to overlook new back gardens and housing. He said that these new mitigation measures were actually of benefit in terms of privacy albeit the new semis were constructed around 2.7m closer than the larger houses that were approved in 2010.

In conclusion, he confirmed that the position of Officers was that given a number of site characteristics including angle of view, differences in ground level height and design of both properties they were recommending approval of the proposal as a minor departure from the Local Development Plan supplementary guidance. They did not feel the relationships were so direct or compromised to refuse and were an acceptable and pragmatic response to the issue that has unfortunately arisen. One of the few options to fully address this shortfall of separation guidance would be to pursue demolition but they did not consider this proportionate to the impact or the minor shortcomings. Furthermore they felt the mitigation measures actually enhanced privacy within areas that has been for several years earmarked for housing.

In this regard, he stated that the Officers have reviewed the development in the context of the development plan and weighed up all material considerations and commended it to Members to approve the application.

APPLICANT

David Campbell advised that he was a Town Planning Consultant working in private practice. He added that he had previously worked for two different local authorities as a Planner for 12 years.

He confirmed that the proposals which were the subject of this application were the introduction of timber cladding to the first floor rear elevations to close off windows; new windows to the side elevations; a 1m wall; hedging behind the wall; and obscure glazing to the ground floor rear windows.

He also advised that there would be a need to reconfigure rooms internally which would be an extra cost and inconvenience to the Applicant.

He confirmed that he supported the Officer’s recommendation which he noted was that the Committee grant consent.

He then ran through the history of the site. He confirmed that in 2010 permission was granted for 16 houses and 4 flats. He advised that at that time 8 objections were lodged but no objection was received from the occupant of Duriehill. He said that in 2014 permission was granted for some changes to the type of houses and that only one objection was received from the owner of Duriehill. He stated that this objection related only to surface water drainage. He confirmed that M and K MacLeod proceeded with development of the site.

He referred to the Council being contacted by the owner of Duriehill in respect of concerns about the development. In response Planning Officers contacted the Applicant to see if a compromise could be reached to address these concerns. He confirmed that the Applicant had developed the site in line with the valid planning permissions.

In terms of the proposal before the Committee today he wished them to note the following points:

1. M and K MacLeod have built the development in line with the planning permission granted. 2. Consideration should be given to the proposed alterations to the development only. 3. M and K MacLeod could continue with the works and there would be no breach of planning. 4. The works proposed are not development works and would not require planning permission. A number of these could be dealt with under permitted development rights. 5. M and K MacLeod are attempting to work with the Council to reach a compromise and to be a good neighbour.

Mr Campbell explained that the timber cladding was a solution suggested by the Planning Officers and would close off the windows on the upper floor. He advised that it was normal to see timber cladding on external facings. He advised that the new windows proposed would not introduce over-looking issues. He pointed out that the 1m wall does not require planning permission and that the planting of the hedge also does not require planning permission. He advised that none of the works proposed would have an adverse impact or contravene planning policies. He said that M and K MacLeod were keen to complete the works on site and advised that there were no reasons to refuse this application.

He referred to policy SG LDP 2 regarding 18m window to window separation distances and said that this was undisputed. He pointed out that as it was proposed to remove the upper windows from the rear elevations this policy was not relevant in this case and that the policy would only apply to the windows on the site elevations and in that case this would be in respect of the windows over-looking gable walls and gardens. He suggested that as the top of the rear elevations would become a blank wall it would be more appropriate to refer to the guidance in respect of gable to gable distances which he believed were between 2 – 4 metres. He advised that the distance from this blank wall to Duriehill would be 9m+.

CONSULTEES

Connel Community Council

Roger Ashforth advised that he was the Secretary of Connel Community Council and represented them here today. He explained that when planning permission for 16 detached dwellings and 4 flatted dwellings was originally granted in 2010 in St Oran’s Place, this new development was welcomed in the village. What was proposed was high quality, low density mixed housing which fitted well into the broader context of Connel. The principle of development having been established, over the next 5 years a series of planning applications were made by the developer and now there were 37 units in a denser development of terraces and flats with arguably an urban rather than village feel.

He stated that what was of concern for members of the Community Council was the manner in which this development became a ‘creeping’ programme. He said that they were saddened that the planning authority did not seem to have seen this and intervened to establish exactly if or what was the final plan. Despite this reservation the Community Council assumed that at least proper planning and building controls had been applied to each and every planning application and build.

He said that at the beginning of May he was contacted by Ann Colthart who was concerned about the proximity of a new build to her property. He advised that he attended her home and it was clear that something had gone wrong. He confirmed that in the next few months the Community Council supported Ann in her dealings with the planning service as it was established what had happened. The Community Council discussed Ann’s experience at their meeting on 26 July 2016 and in relation to the planning application before the Committee today it was unanimously agreed to instruct the Secretary to lodge a number of strong objections.

He confirmed that they had three material objections to this application as follows:-

1. Overlooking

He referred to page 106 of the guidance on sustainable siting and design and advised that the rules state “A distance of 12 metres is required between habitable room windows and gable ends or elevations with only non-habitable room windows”. He advised that although the location of the plots was technically not part of the planning application it was relevant. He stated that this application was in effect a series of attempts at remedial action linked to its location because the buildings, as the Community Council know, were put in the wrong place when the plans were consented. He advised that the main issue was that plot 4 was just too close to Duriehill and that this was not addressed by the remedial action proposed. After this latest planning revision he advised that it was noted that the distance between Duriehill and the proposed blank wall at first floor level was still only 9.35 metres so was still in clear breach of the 12 metre requirement.

2. Design

He advised that the Community Council considered that plot 4 did not meet the terms of the Council’s policies on Development Setting Layout and Design which stated on page 48 “developments with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities including over development and overshadowing of sites shall be resisted”.

He stated that in a failed attempt to restore privacy to Mrs Colthart, what was planned was that the windows in the gable at plot 4 would now face the gable wall of 10 St Oran’s Place. The upper rear storey wall is now blank with no windows and the ground floor windows to the kitchen and dining areas are to be frosted and fixed. Referring to its north facing situation he suggested that this would mean that the house would be dark and dingy. He advised that the building of homes with these sorts of issues should not be deliberate.

He said that the proposed development clearly did overshadow and cause loss of privacy to Duriehill and the wider area has been adversely affected in that Duriehill and the 2 plots are now cheek by jowl in a street of otherwise spaced, detached houses.

3. Departure from Local Development Plan

He advised that the Community Council were concerned that this proposal amounted to retrospective planning permission “to address a mistake”. He referred to the relevant section in the Local Development Plan which states “The Council shall seek to minimise the occurrence of departures to the Local Development Plan and to grant planning permission as a departure only when material planning considerations so justify”. He stated that allowing this proposal to proceed would clearly breach this policy as there were clearly no “material planning considerations” applicable. He said that what was planned in this proposal was an attempt to rectify a mistake on a siting of a building by proposing a series of mitigation remedies which, in the Community Council’s view, did not work.

To conclude, he confirmed that the Community Council were of the opinion that this planning proposal did not meet a number of key standards set out in the Local Development Plan and they respectfully requested that the Committee refuse to grant this application.

OBJECTORS

Ann Colthart

Ann Colthart confirmed that she was the owner of Duriehill. She confirmed that she has lived there for over 30 years during both her working life and retirement. She confirmed that she has asked Maud Marshall to act on her behalf but that she would also like to present a brief opening statement.

She thanked the Committee for taking the time to make a site visit, as only by seeing things at first hand, did she think the Committee could fully appreciate the impact of the proximity of Plots 3 and 4 at St Oran’s Place on her home and the effect this has had on her privacy and amenity.

She added that the Committee would be in no doubt as to why she was objecting very strongly to the proposals before them today. She stated that these proposals did not alter the fact that plot 4 was far too close to her home.

She referred to the situation arising because mistakes had been made. She acknowledged that mistakes happen but could not accept that, in this instance, she or any possible occupants of the houses at plots 3 and 4 should be the ones to live with the consequences. She stated that once the Planners realised the “catalogue of errors”, “stretching back over years” and arising from “staff changes”, they have been both helpful and professional in explaining to her, as a lay person, what they were trying to do to resolve matters. She advised that this was not enough.

She said that if there was anything positive to have come out of all of this, was the incredible support from, and the unity amongst, her friends, neighbours, the Community Council, 4 ward Councillors and her MSP. Without exception, she advised that all have been shocked and appalled at what has happened.

She stated that the written objections received were testimony to the strength of feeling in the community. She advised that they, like her, saw no fairness, or planning justification in what was proposed. And they, like her, did not accept that the proposals resolved the basic problem that plots 3 and 4 should never have been built where they were. She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Maud Marshall

Maud Marshall advised that Ann Colthart was a truly good friend to her and that it was a privilege to be acting on her behalf.

She stated that the application before the Committee, in contrast to the Officer’s report of handling, was not a minor departure.

She referred to the planning history – a material consideration. She asked the Committee to focus on two prior consents. In 2010 the first consent was given to the St Oran’s development for 16 detached houses and 4 flats. This contained one house which was too close to Ann Colthart’s home – plot 17. With an estimated 12m window to window distance from Ms Colthart’s home, this was not compliant with the Council’s ‘overlooking’ guidelines. She said that they did not accept the Development Manager’s opinion on the angle of view.

She advised that the guidelines sought an 18m separation. She read out an extract from Appendix A, Sustainable Siting and Design Principles, para 13.3 states “The standards have been successfully applied by the Council for many years and it is intended that their use will continue”.

She stated that in their opinion the 2010 consent was a flawed consent and an unmonitored departure from the Local Plan 2009 – thus falling short of policy LP DEP 1 – Departures to the Development Plan.

She then advised that in 2014 Officers gave consent to 6 semi-detached houses and stated that this consent was also non-compliant, in terms again of Appendix A, para 13.3 on ‘overlooking’. She commented that there has been no disagreement on this and as such, it was a further flawed consent and unmonitored departure from the Local Plan.

She then referred to it being recorded in the report of handling and the minutes of the PPSL Committee meeting on 21 September 2016 that 2 notable errors occurred during the processing of the 2014 consent. The first of those, she highlighted, was that the site and location plans submitted by the Applicant used out of date Ordnance Survey data and did not depict the extension to Ann Colthart’s home which had been in existence for 14 years. She referred to OS being a wonderful resource but pointed out that it had its limitations and was no substitute for a site survey. She also added that standard industry practice dictated that measurements were checked on site and not off plans.

She said that this error appears to have also occurred during the processing of the 2010 consent. She noted that a site inspection was undertaken during the 2010 consent process and that a comprehensive set of photographs were taken. She tabled two of these to the Committee and pointed out that it was clear in these that Duriehill was a mere 3m from the development site boundary. She questioned why these were not considered during the 2014 office based assessment. She advised that this error resulted in plots 3 and 4 being consented in 2014, with separation distances ranging from 9.3m to 14.5m and stated that they were patently non- compliant.

She also referred to a third ‘notable error’ which she stated has not appeared to have been reported to the Committee. She said that it involved another unmet requirement of Appendix A which states “Plans submitted with planning applications will be required to show the location of all adjoining properties and the exact position of their main windows”. She advised that this did not happen in both the 2010 and 2014 applications.

She then referred to the proposals and pointed out that Officers have acknowledged these do not meet the standards and guidance set out the Council’s plans and documents.

She stated that the proposals were not compatible with the rear elevations of the other properties at St Oran’s Place as the other properties have clear and opening windows on both floors and white render to the walls. In contrast plots 3 and 4 would have timber cladding at upper floor level and fixed windows with obscure glass on the ground floor. As such these proposals fell short of policy LDP 9.

She said that the Argyll and Bute Design Guide advocated careful design of windows and openings and advised that the proposals failed to address this as they did not provide the right balance between wall and windows and nor did the ground floor windows, with obscure glass, use materials appropriate to the design and function of the houses.

She stated that the absence of windows on the upper floor and the introduction of timber cladding was an inappropriate detailing in this housing development. She said that timber cladding was not a ‘design feature to add interest’ but would be an unbroken, large area of timber cladding which might work well in new houses near agricultural buildings but not fitting in this setting. She said that this poor design failed to consider the amenity and respect of Ann Colthart’s home. She commented that it might claim to resolve the ‘inter-visibility’ issues but it did not address the fact that there was still a blank wall at less than the required distance of 12m.

She advised that the proposals for the wall and hedging as a boundary treatment and the over-shadowing effect that this would represent were completely unacceptable. She said that the boundary was only 3m from the nearest window of the sunroom at Duriehill.

She then commented on the proposals from the perspective of possible future occupants of plots 3 and 4. She stated that obscured glass may work well for bathrooms and toilets, but its use in rooms where families centre their lives was completely incomprehensible. She added that it was also an unacceptable solution in a north facing situation. She said it would demean and degrade the living areas of any potential occupants, made worse by the overshadowing of Ann Colthart’s adjacent and higher property. She also referred to the incorporation of obscure glass to all ground floor windows in plots 3 and 4 looking onto their back gardens and said this would mean that passive policing by those living in the houses would not be possible. Children playing in the garden would not be visible, nor would any intruders. She also referred to the private garden to the rear of plot 4 and commented that it already had very poor amenity as it was very small and awkwardly configured and that it was overlooked and over shadowed by Ann Colthart’s property. She said that the proposed retaining wall and leylandii hedge could only further reduce the size of the garden and the amount of light reaching it.

Referring to the mitigating measures she advised that they considered them to be neither compatible with, nor respectful of Ann Colthart’s home and neighbourhood in terms of appearance, scale, and materials and massing. She said the design fell short of the standards and guidance in the Council’s plans and policies. She added that they did not ‘meaningfully enhance the situation’ and were, in themselves, deficient.

She then raised concerns about how this application was handled. She stated that they did not seek to impugn the good character and integrity of the person in question but rather the propriety of the process itself. She advised that they believed that there may be an issue of partiality. She advised that the Officer on whose watch the errors occurred was the same Officer who has investigated the situation, the same Officer who has sought to negotiate the mitigation proposals between the Applicant and Ms Colthart and the same officer making recommendations today. She said that they have repeatedly raised this with the Planning Service with suggestions that the Officer asked to deal with this was being put in an impossible position and that an independent and impartial Officer, not connected to the case, should have handled it. She stated that they contend that the method of handling by the Planning Service appears to be a contravention of natural justice.

She questioned whether the application before Members was a minor departure. She advised that over the last year, the Committee have consented 2 minor departures: one covering only one building element; and the other a temporary permission. She stated that this proposal had far too many non-compliant breaches of the Council’s standards in an unacceptable combination; and consent would not be temporary. She added that the mitigation measures did not respect the Local Development Plan. She advised that they were not due to justifiable material considerations, but rather they were a device to accommodate ‘notable errors’ by both the planners and the applicant.

She said that with 2 flawed consents, 2 unmonitored departures from the Local Plan, 3 notable errors, 8 non-compliant mitigation measures and a major question over the propriety of the handling of the application, how could it be said that this was a minor departure. She asked how many wrongs it would take to make a right. She stated that this litany seriously undermined the strategy and integrity of the Local Development Plan 2015 and that consent to the application could not be justified and that it constituted a major departure. She asked the Committee to refuse this application.

Councillor Elaine Robertson

Councillor Robertson read out the following statement:-

“I would like to thank the Committee for listening to the strength of feeling of the people of Connel and for agreeing to visit the site and hold this pre determination hearing.

In 2007 when the first application was lodged, and subsequently withdrawn, the community recognised the need for family homes including affordable housing and initially welcomed the development but as time progressed, and the number of houses increased from 18-36, anxiety set in. This arose from the many subsequent applications, I believe there to be at least 5, to the planning department, and left neighbouring property owners and the community confused and concerned as exactly what was happening.

I will not go into the planning details pertaining to this application or Argyll and Bute policies. These have been fully presented by Mrs Marshall.

This amended planning application does not address the underlying problem and cannot be described as a minor breach of policy, it is a significant breach, and one which has a major impact on Ms Colthart’s wellbeing, and the physical relationship between her home, Duriehill, and the new properties.

This breach has been fully acknowledged by the Planning Department and I thank them for their frankness and the diligence with which they have addressed the matter. However, the mitigation proposals within the application before us are but an attempt to reduce the impact, they do not address the issues nor alleviate the problem of inter-visibility, privacy and the overbearing proximity of the houses on Plot 3 and 4. While recognising that stress and loss of amenities are not material planning matters, it would be wrong not to bring to your attention, the distress this has caused Ms Colthart and the manner in which it has compromised her home and lifestyle.

As a result, and with respect, I would ask the Committee to refuse this application on the grounds that it does not address the underlying problem of proximity and is a clear breach of the Council’s policy on inter-visibility, privacy and distances between properties. Not to do so would set an unwelcome and seriously concerning precedent for any future planning applications in Argyll and Bute.

I submit this, a unanimous plea on behalf of my colleagues and myself, the four members of Oban North and Lorn, ward 5.

Thank you for your time and kind attention.”

Sheila Tollan

Sheila Tollan advised that she has been a friend of Ann Colthart’s for over 20 years and that she was very much aware of how she has been affected by this current situation. She referred to the stress affecting her health and wellbeing and pointed out that the enjoyment of her home has been diminished. She asked the Committee to consider these purely personal factors.

Douglas Small

Douglas Small advised that he was a friend of Ann Colthart. He referred to the concerns raised by the community and stated that he vigorously opposed this application. He referred to the number of objections made to the application and to the number of objectors who have attended the meeting today which demonstrated the strength of feeling in the community. He advised that there have been no letters of support for this proposal and no one has personally attended to give their support to this application today which, he said, was hugely significant. He referred to this application being seen as trying to mitigate/put right a catalogue of errors on the part of the Planners. He referred to the comments made by Mrs Marshall about flawed consents and notable errors which he endorsed. He referred to the proposal not complying with design guidelines and planning policy. He also referred to the objection made by the local MSP which he endorsed. He said that it was clear to him as a lay person that Ms Colthart was a victim of a catalogue of errors on the part of the Planners and referred to the unacceptable proximity of the new houses to Ms Colthart’s home. He said the mitigating measures would restrict daylight to the rear of 11 and 12 St Oran’s Place. He advised that the inhabitants of Argyll and Bute were entitled to expect a better service from the Council. He said that the right thing to do would be to demolish 11 and 12 St Oran’s Place but acknowledged that the Committee were not here to consider that today. He urged the Committee to maintain standards and refuse this application. He stated that if they did not then they would lose the trust of the local community. He said the Committee should not be concerned about the financial implications for the Applicant or the Council or the loss of 1 or 2 houses if they refused this application. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Barbara MacFarlane

Barbara MacFarlane advised that she was Ann Colthart’s next door neighbour and that she has witnessed the stress Ann has been under since it became apparent that the houses were not the correct distance from her home. She advised that the objectors were not “nimbys” and stated that many of the community were in support of the original proposal. She referred to the plans submitted being based on out of date Ordinance Survey data. She advised that Planning Guidance and local plan policies were not being adhered to. She said that the mistakes made should be removed and not mitigated. She advised that she did not object to the original design of the houses. She advised that these houses were in the wrong place and asked that the application be refused.

Councillor Iain Maclean

Councillor MacLean advised that it appeared to him that the Planners were trying to make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. He referred to the design mitigations being incongruous and stated that the proposed changes to the houses would not be in keeping with the others there. He advised that if this application was approved the houses would stand out and be a reminder of the errors made. Alasdair Carswell

Alasdair Carswell advised that he lived next door to Ann Colthart and that he has lived in Connel for 5 years. He said that he could see both the houses from his home and that he could see how close they were to Ann’s property which, he said, was frightening. He referred to the proposed planting of leylandii hedging and advised that 2 trees in his garden fell down when he first moved in. He said that if the hedging was left there would be a danger that it would also fall down and cause damage. He commented on the catalogue of errors made and mitigation action proposed. He advised that the proposed windows on the side elevation would look into his garden and into his son’s bedroom. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Michael Russell, MSP

Mr Reppke read out the following statement from Michael Russell, MSP:-

“I am sorry I am not able to be present today owing to Parliamentary and Scottish Government business, however I have been asked to provide a short statement in my capacity as MSP for Argyll and Bute, which I am happy to do.

I don’t think this hearing should be about blame. No doubt there are issues regarding how this very unfortunate situation arose but the key issue now is to resolve it without any more delay and the person who most needs a speedy, just and equitable resolution is Ann.

Ann has every right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property. That is enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Enjoyment in these circumstances is not just a legal term however, for it must include the positive and well established way she uses, and is able to use, her garden and her house.

Such enjoyment would be very adversely affected if this application was to succeed. Ann could not sit in her sun room and look out without seeing completely unnatural obstructions overshadowing her garden. These obstructions, moreover, would never have had planning permission if that had been applied for through the normal process. They would only be there because of an error. Many years of investment and improvement of her property would be set at naught and she would have a significantly reduced quality of life in her retirement.

That is simply not acceptable. She must not be put in a positon where an error blights her life. That error can be corrected by ensuring the properties built in the wrong place are removed and the ground given over to something constructive but non-obtrusive like a playground or a spot for recreation. However it cannot be corrected by the changes applied for and indeed they would only compound the problem by constantly reminding Ann and her neighbours of what had gone wrong and the refusal to set it right.

I do hope the Committee will do the proper, human and legally correct thing and ensure that this application is rejected and the properties are demolished. I would be happy to work with anyone to help resolve the issues that arise from that but first Ann must be treated as any of us would want to be treated were we in this position”. The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 1.00 pm for lunch.

The Committee reconvened at 2.00 pm.

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS

Councillor Colville referred to hearing of different applications submitted for this development site and asked the Applicant why different variations were made. Mr Campbell explained there were two key applications mentioned: the one approved in 2010 for 16 houses and 4 flats and the other in 2014 which changed the layout of part of the site. He confirmed that the development has been built in line with the two different planning consents. He said that it was a market decision to change the original development from private dwellings to a mixture of private and affordable housing.

Councillor Colville referred to an extract from paragraph 13.3 of Appendix A: Sustainable Siting and Design Principles read out by Mrs Marshall. He asked if she agreed with him that if she had continued to read all of the text in the paragraph it would have gone on to say that “These standards may be relaxed”. Mrs Marshall referred to there being 3 notable errors and explained that it was not her intention for this paragraph to be taken out of context. She acknowledged that the guidance could be waived but there needed to be good reasons to justify in planning terms the reasons for waiving this guidance. She advised that in this case there were notable errors and flaws and she believed that the guidance was being waived for the wrong reasons.

Councillor Colville referred to the houses being built 9.35 m from Duriehill and he also referred to the suggestion of demolition of these houses. He asked Planning if it would be possible to move the houses 2.7 m away from Duriehill and, if this was possible, would it create a better or worse scenario. Mr McLaughlin confirmed that there was no proposal in front of the Committee to demolish these houses. He stated that a lot has been said about the 2.7m and separation distances. He said that angles and design also needed to be taken into consideration as these were material considerations and that a lessor standard could be acceptable as it was not just about the separation distance. He said that he had not been down at the site to investigate whether or not the extra 2.7 m could be achieved so could not answer this question fully.

Councillor Freeman asked Ms Colthart when she first became aware that there was a problem with this development. Ms Colthart advised that work on this development has been ongoing for some time. She said that when she left her home on 2 May the foundations had been laid for these houses and when she returned on 10 May the roof and sides had been erected and it was then she could see the implications of what was happening and it was at that point she enlisted the help of friends for support and advice on what to do with this issue.

Councillor Freeman asked Planning when they first became aware of the problem and at what stage of completion was the development at that time. Mr McLaughlin explained that he could not give an exact date. He advised that meetings first took place with Ms Colthart and the Applicant at the beginning of June. He explained that the buildings were substantially completed by then. He said that the roof was on but he could not be sure if the tiles had been attached. Councillor Freeman asked Planning if they could confirm that only policy SG LDP 2 was the issue here and that there were no other policies of any concern. Mr McLaughlin confirmed that was correct. He said that the proposal was acceptable as a minor departure from this policy.

Councillor Freeman referred to separation distances and asked Planning if it was unusual to receive applications that did not meet the 18m and 12m guidelines. Mr McLaughlin explained that the 18m and 12m distances were in respect of direct inter-visibility. He added that it was not often that proposals came in for buildings with direct inter-visibility. He advised that Planning always tried to achieve the best design in terms of privacy and separation. He added there were times when point to point the separation distances were less but in these cases the buildings’ windows to windows or windows to gables were not directly in line with each other.

Councillor Freeman sought and received confirmation from Mr McLaughlin that it would be unusual for an application not to meet these guidelines.

Councillor Freeman also sought and received confirmation from Mr McLaughlin that the proposal to demolish these buildings was not the issue today.

Councillor McNaughton referred to the proposal to change the ground floor windows to frosted panes and asked if this was a socially acceptable resolution for these houses. He asked if there would be any planning or building issue in this respect. Mr McLaughlin advised that there were Building Standards regarding daylight. He said that the Building Standards Manager had looked at the draft proposals and he had no issue with this as these windows were north facing and would experience less light. He advised that the Building Standards Manager had no concerns with moving the windows to the gable ends and adding patio doors. He said it would not be in the developer’s interest to build uninhabitable accommodation.

Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that they have previously built properties with opaque windows in rooms other that bathrooms and laundry rooms.

Councillor Blair also sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that there would be accessible housing included in the development.

Councillor Blair referred to the proposal to introduce timber cladding to these properties and sought comment from the Applicant. Mr MacLeod advised that this was a suggestion made by the Planners. He explained that they would be happy to change this to rough cast walls.

Councillor Kinniburgh also referred to the timber cladding and queried whether or not it would be unusual for the design of these houses to be different from the design of the rest of the development. Mr MacLeod advised that Planning were trying to get design elements that would be acceptable to the neighbour.

Councillor Colville referred to the policy assessment in the report of handling and asked why the Sustainable Design Guidelines were included when these were non- statutory guidelines. Mr McLaughlin advised that reference to these guidelines was made in many of the representations received on this application so it was thought appropriate to include reference to these in the planning assessment of the application.

Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Mrs Marshall that she had not made reference to there being 8 objections to the 2010 consent. Mrs Marshall read out what she had said earlier about the 2010 consent. She confirmed that Ms Colthart had not objected to the development at that time. She also confirmed that Ms Colthart objected to the 2014 application as she had concerns about drainage and flooding. She added that Ms Colthart had relied on Planning looking after her interests. She queried the need for a Planning Service if the Council were relying on neighbours to notify them of discrepancies.

Councillor Kinniburgh referred to comments made that the separation distances had not been complied with in respect of the 2010 consent and sought comment from Planning. Mr McLaughlin, with the aid of his presentation slides, showed the layout of the 2010 plan. He pointed out that the separation between Duriehill and the closest proximity to the houses was 12m. He stated again that separation distances could be relaxed when taking account of angles of view. He referred to other properties on the development site which had separation distances of 8m which were acceptable due to the angles. He confirmed that a Planning Officer was on site at that time and that there was no departure from the Plan.

Councillor Kinniburgh sought and received confirmation from Planning that properties pointed out with 8m separation distances in the 2010 plan were no longer part of the development.

Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Planning that there were different contours and levels across the development site.

Councillor Colville sought and received confirmation from Mr Reppke that Members should only concern themselves with the Local Development Plan and other material considerations. He confirmed that the complaints about the errors would be dealt with through a different process.

SUMMING UP

Planning

Mr McLaughlin confirmed that the Committee were here to assess the planning application that was in front of them today and on the individual merits of the proposal. He added that they were not here to assess the suitability for this site for housing development as this has been established by several consents over almost a decade.

He referred to the concerns of the Community Council regarding overlooking, design and departure from the plan. He also referred to paragraph 13.3 of the Design Guidance which stated that this guidance could be relaxed.

He referred to comments made by Mrs Marshall about the 2010 consent and confirmed there this was not a flawed consent and that there was no unmonitored departure from the Local Development Plan at that time. He also referred to comments about the handling of the application. He confirmed that the 2014 application was handled by the Area Team Leader at that time. He also confirmed that the corporate complaint was being dealt with separately by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.

The Council is required by Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 to make planning decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case there have been unfortunate circumstances that led to this property being approved without full consideration of the separation distance guidelines. Planning Officers have sought to reach a proportionate solution for the small shortcomings in terms of distance which is less than 2.7m.

The report has also highlighted that the proposed amendments eliminate direct window to window conflicts and there are a number of material factors such as the angle of view, design of the sunroom, differences in ground height and site history that mean the relationships are not direct as specified within our policy. Our policy also expressly allows for a degree of relaxation where such circumstances persist.

Weighing up all these factors Planning Officers feel there are benefits in terms of privacy of this application and commend it for approval to the Committee.

Applicant

Mr Campbell confirmed that planning permission for these houses was granted in 2014 and that they were in a similar position to those granted in 2010. He added that this application was to deal with alterations to the 2014 consent. Namely, timber cladding to close off the upper floor windows to the rear of the building, the introduction of new windows to the side elevations, the addition of a 1m wall and hedging to the boundary between the development site and Duriehill. He advised that it was his opinion that some of these would not be considered by the development plan and so would not require planning permission. He also advised that the introduction of the 1m wall and hedging could be applied under permitted development rights. He referred to there only being 8 objections to the 2010 consent and 1 objection to the 2014 consent. He said that the suggestion that the properties had been built in the wrong place was not the case. He confirmed that the development has been built in line with the two planning permissions granted. He also referred to policy SG LDP 2 which deals with 18m and 12m separation distances. He explained that as the upper floor windows were being closed off it was clear there would be no overlooking so this policy would not apply to the rear elevations and could only be related to the side windows.

Consultees

Connel Community Council

Mr Ashforth advised that he would not repeat the three objections the Community Council had made. He confirmed that he had heard nothing from the Applicant or Planning to cause him to have any doubt about the decision made at the meeting of the Community Council on 26 July 2016 instructing him to object to this proposal. Objectors

Maud Marshall

Mrs Marshall referred to the waiving of guidance and design guides and questioned why have them. She said the community should expect better standards. She stated that she and Mr McLaughlin would remain in dispute about the separation distances. She added that they were not just talking about Ms Colthart, but also the future occupants of the new houses. She asked the Committee if they would like to live in a house where the kitchen windows had obscured glass. She said that the Applicant and the Planners had not taken account of paragraph 13.3 of the Design Guidance. She advised that they did not think this application reflected a minor departure to the plan. She stated that there was no published definition of what, in Argyll and Bute, constituted a minor departure. She advised that this proposal had too many non-compliant breaches and if allowed it would be there for generations. She said that the mitigating measures did not respect or uphold the Local Development Plan and were a device to accommodate ‘notable errors’ by both the Planners and the Applicant. She reiterated that with 2 flawed consents, 2 unmonitored departures from the Local Plan, 3 notable errors, 8 non-compliant mitigation measures and a major question over the proper handling of the application, how could it be said that this was just a minor departure. She said that if permission was granted, the integrity of the Local Development Plan would be undermined. She stated that consent to the application could not be justified and that it constituted a major departure. She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Elaine Robertson

Councillor Robertson confirmed that she had listened to all that had been said and she still felt the amended planning application did not address the underlying problem and could not be described as a minor breach of policy. She stressed that it was a significant breach which would have a major impact on Ms Colthart’s wellbeing, and the physical relationship between her home and the new properties.

Douglas Small

Mr Small confirmed that he adopted the submission made my Mrs Marshall. He agreed that the proposed amendments did not represent a minor departure and that the suggested alterations would not be in proportion to the rest of the development. He urged the Committee to reject the application.

Councillor Iain MacLean

Councillor MacLean said that he grew up in the area and had a background in architecture. He referred to the apology made by Planning in respect of a catalogue of errors. He referred to the proposed mitigation measures being unacceptable and would result in the houses not being in keeping with the area. He added that this was not an architectural solution and that these were not minor alterations.

When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing.

Mr Reppke referred to the Standards Commission’s National Code of Conduct for Councillors which advised that Members not involved in planning decisions who had submitted or made a representation on an application should declare an interest and leave the meeting prior to the Committee debating and coming to a decision on the application. He advised those Members present to take account of this advice given.

Councillors Elaine Robertson, Kieron Green, Julie McKenzie and Iain MacLean left the meeting at this point.

DEBATE

Councillor Freeman advised that it was quite clear that a number of errors had been made in respect of the 2014 consent by a number of parties and that these had been acknowledged and accepted. He stated that the issue before Members was fairly simple and related only to policy SG LDP 2. He advised that it was his view that no sufficient argument had been put forward to justify the minor departure. He advised that at the appropriate time he would put forward a Motion.

Councillor MacIntyre explained that this application was not acceptable and that he did not support it.

Councillor Blair referred to there being a legal process in place and that the Committee were part of this. He commended the high quality of representations heard today. He advised that he was concerned about many aspects of this application and that he was minded not to support it.

Councillor Colville confirmed that he had listened to all that had been said and was aware of very real emotions running through. He said that the Committee could only consider the proposal in front of them today. He confirmed that he supported the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he was in agreement with Councillor Colville. He said that it was obvious the shortcomings had been accepted by Planning. He stated that if the buildings were moved 2.7m back he did not believe this would make a material difference. He confirmed that he supported the Planning recommendation.

Councillor McNaughton advised that he found this whole situation very difficult and could appreciate the views from both sides. He advised that he was sure is mind was made up but would wait to hear the details of any amendment.

Motion

To agree to grant planning permission as a minor departure to the Local Development Plan subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling.

Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor Rory Colville.

Having moved an Amendment which was ruled incompetent, Councillor Freeman moved the following Amendment. Amendment

To agree to continue consideration of the application to allow Members time to consider a competent Amendment to refuse the application.

Moved by Councillor George Freeman, seconded by Councillor Neil MacIntyre

The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

DECISION

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission as a minor departure to the Local Development Plan subject to the following conditions and reasons:-

General

1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 20/07/16 and the approved drawing reference numbers:

Plan 1 of 2 (Drawing Number 1664-A4-000-C) Plan 2 of 2 (Drawing Number 1664-A1-200-D)

unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Note to Applicant:

 This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period [See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).]

 In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act.

In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed.

Design and Finishes

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, full details of the proposed timber cladding, including a sample, shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and having regard to Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP 2 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the existing windows in the ground floor rear elevation of the semi-detached dwellinghouse shall be replaced with fixed, obscure glazed units which shall thereafter be retained as obscure glazed windows to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and having regard to Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP 2 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015.

Landscaping

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, full details, in plan form, of the proposed retaining wall shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interests of visual amenity and having regard to Policy LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP 2 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, full details of the proposed boundary treatment and planting, including height and number of plants, together with programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of, or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 1A, 1B, 1D, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E of the of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below:

PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE

Class 1A: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a single storey ground floor extension, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. . Class 1B: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a ground floor extension consisting of more than one storey, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement.

Class 1D: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof.

Class 2B: Any improvement, addition or other alteration to the external appearance of a dwellinghouse that is not an enlargement.

Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building.

Class 3B: The carrying out of any building, engineering, installation or other operation within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface.

Class 3D: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any deck or other raised platform within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse.

Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the proposed dwellinghouse and neighbouring property in perpetuity from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended).”

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 13 September 2016 and supplementary report number 1 dated 20 September 2016, submitted)

The Council resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 4. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 16/00196/ENOTH1

Consideration was given to enforcement case reference 16/00196/ENOTH1.

DECISION

The committee agreed to take no action.

(Reference: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 12 September 2016, submitted) Argyll and Bute Council Planning and Regulatory Services

This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) Section 36 consultation regarding the proposed Upper Sonachan wind farm on Land at Land at Upper Sonachan Forest South East of Portsonachan Loch Awe (as amended by the submission of Further Environmental Information 12.09.16) ______

Our Reference No: 15/03175/S36

Applicant: Ecotricity

Proposal: Section 36 consultation relative to Upper Sonachan Wind Farm

Site Address: Land at Upper Sonachan Forest South East Of Portsonachan Loch Awe ______

(A) Section 36 application made up of the following elements:

• Erection of 18 wind turbines 136.5m high to blade tip (85m to hub, Rotor Diameter 103m) with an individual output of up to 3.4MW with a total installed capacity of 64.6MW. (Revised at Further Environmental Information (FEI) submission stage from initial proposal for 19 turbines); • Crane pad hard-standing areas adjacent to each turbine; • Formation of new onsite access tracks (approximately 5.5km) including 1.1km for the Forestry Link Road and approximately 10.3km of upgraded existing track together with formation of passing places and associated watercourse crossings; • On site control building underground cabling and an onsite grid connection sub-station (Revised substation location at FEI stage); • A permanent meteorological mast up to 85m in height and associated crane pad area; • Cable routes from turbines to the onsite substation; • Amended vehicular access off the A819. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Council as Planning Authority objects to this proposal for the reasons detailed below and that the Scottish Government be notified accordingly ______

Scottish Natural Heritage (Dated 9.3.16 and 25.10.16) - Objection. An consultation response dated 9.3.16 contained three reasons for objection founded around impacts upon golden eagles, carbon rich soils and landscape/visual considerations. However, following the submission of the FEI two of these reasons have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicants as set out below: Golden Eagles: The FEI July 2016 included the additional winter of bird survey work hence completing the overall survey and assessment. No additional eagle use of the wind farm area was recorded. Since March 2016 the proposed development of Balliemeanoch wind farm has been formally withdrawn. This removes the potential for cumulative impacts with that development. The FEI contained a revised PAT Model, an assessment of risks of impacts on the SPA and also answered the question over simultaneous view shed monitoring which may have impacted on collision risk modelling. Due to the above we are able to retract our objections made in section 2.2 and 2.3 of our previous response dated 9th March 2016. In addition we also advise that, in our view, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly of the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.

Carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat: We agree with the conclusion drawn in Ch.3 section 3.4.5 of the FEI July 2016 that the majority of the existing peatland resource will be tending towards a M19 habitat type (eg. disturbed from historical management). We advise that the measures cited in section 2.6 of our response dated 9th March 2016, which are refined further in FEI July 2016 appendix 5.1 page 9, should be implemented so as to achieve maximum mitigation in terms of reducing further disturbance and protecting residual pockets of M17 habitat.

The remaining reason for objection from SNH set out in their consultation response dated 25.10.16 is stated as being:

1. The proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of north Loch Awe, impacting on distinctive regional character and an important gateway into Mid Argyll and Lorn which contributes to national identity and sense of place.

2. SNH has not been able to identify any mitigation which will address this objection.

Scottish Natural Heritage have provided substantial expert commentary in respect of this proposal in their consultation responses dated 9 March 2016 (related to the proposal for 19 Turbines) and again on 25.10.16 in respect of the reduced proposal of 18 turbines submitted on 12.09.16 as part of the FEI. Members will be aware that it is the current policy of SNH not to deploy objections to wind farm developments other than in cases where development would lead to significantly adverse effects on the integrity of national designations, reserving their position in other cases of one of advice. Given that this proposal is not situated within a National Scenic Area and SNH have concluded that surrounding NSA’s would not be significantly prejudiced, it is therefore to be regarded as being exceptional for SNH to have been prompted to deploy a formal objection to this proposal, and careful particular attention should be given to the grounds upon which this objection has been founded.

Owing to the substantial and detailed nature of SNH’s response extracts are provided below which demonstrate the main issues and concerns raised:

The development mainly impacts on the north Loch Awe landscape. The SNH Landscapes of Scotland work and map shows that this area lies within the Regional Character Area (RCA) 44, “Mid Argyll and Lorn” http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/scotlands- landscapes/landscapes-varieties/. Key features of this landscape unit are the linear lochs, of which Loch Awe is the longest (being the longest freshwater loch in Scotland) and the diverse views with glimpses of the highlands; with Ben Cruachan a particular feature. It is considered this RCA makes a significant contribution to the distinctiveness and identity of Scotland’s landscape.

The proposed wind farm would be within, and viewed from, the regionally distinctive landscape of North Loch Awe, and would be prominent from popular mountain summits such as Ben Cruachan.

The wind farm is located within an Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) at the transitional edge area of the Craggy Upland Landscape Character Type 7 (LCT), and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c LCT. Such transitional areas of the Craggy Upland LCT are more sensitive to wind farm development, primarily because wind farms are tall structures that are likely to have an influence on adjoining landscape character types.

We advised at scoping that we considered that it would be extremely difficult to accommodate a wind farm at this site without significant effects that cannot be avoided, and that the proposal would result in adverse significant landscape visual and cumulative effects on a very sensitive landscape.

The proposal straddles the Craggy Upland LCT & and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c roughly equally (ES Figures 5.1a and 7.5a viewed together), with the turbines sited at the edge of the mapped Craggy Upland 7 LCT where it abuts the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c as shown in the LVIA figure 7.6a. The site location is contrary to the Capacity Study because the development would be prominent from open sections of Loch Awe, would be part of the immediate backdrop and setting of Loch Awe (LCT7) and would intrude into key views to and from the loch, its islands, historic features and panoramas of the mountains (LCT7c).

Having considered the landscape visual and cumulative effects of the proposal along with the Capacity Study guidance we consider that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Capacity Study, both in terms of the Detailed Sensitivity Assessments (Chapter 5) and in the Summary of Findings and Conclusions (Chapter 8).

National Designations

The proposal has the potential to impact on the following national designations:  Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park  Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area  Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area

For Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park we advise that although the development would not affect the qualities for which it has been designated, it would however have an adverse effect from key elevated viewpoints within the Park, for example from VP9 Ben Lui, and also VP10 Ben Ime from which cumulative effects would be significant.

We consider that the development would not have a significant effect on the integrity of the Ben Nevis and Glencoe and the Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Areas. Local Designations

The proposal is wholly within the North Argyll Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) and this local designation recognises the scenic value of the landscape. The APQ covers the head of Loch Awe and the mountains beyond, abutting National Designations and encompassing Wild Land Areas. We do not agree with the LVIA that significant effects on the North Loch Awe APQ would be limited to within 3km of the site, and we provide further advice on landscape character and also viewpoints that are within the APQ.

Wild Land Areas

We advise that the development has the potential to impact on Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area 9 and Ben Lui Wild Land Area 6. We do not consider that the LVIA has adequately assessed the potential effects on Wild Land Areas.

In addition we advise that the visual impact assessment from viewpoints within the Wild Land Areas understates the effects. We consider that there would be significant visual and cumulative effects from the Ben Cruachan area of the Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area, and significant cumulative effects from the Ben Lui Mountain group in the Ben Lui Wild Land Area. We provide more detailed advice on the impacts in our landscape, visual and cumulative advice below.

Given the assessment of effects from wild land area viewpoints in the LVIA we can understand why the LVIA wild land assessment finds effects to be moderate/minor on wild land areas as a whole. However we consider that the focus on the entire wild land area alone understates the effects of the development on Wild Land Areas 6 and 9. Whilst we agree with the LVIA that effects on the Wild Land Areas (6 and 9) as a whole are not likely to be significant we disagree with the assessments of effects on the those parts of the Wild Land Areas in closest proximity to the proposal.

Landscape Impacts

The Landscape character types referred to in our advice are those as published in the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012.

The wind farm is located at the transitional edge area between Landscape Character Types; the Craggy Upland 7, and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c, and in very close proximity to the Rocky Mosaic of North Loch Awe. At the head of Loch Awe further character types interlock to create a distinctive landscape including LCT2 High Tops and LCT4 Hidden and Mountain Glen.

We consider that the development will extend the influence of wind farms in the Craggy Upland LCT away from the interior of the Craggy upland into another transitional landscape area.

We advise that the predicted operational impacts of the proposal on landscape character would result in a significant landscape effect at and close to the site for Craggy Upland (LCT 7). In addition, landscape effects would be significant at North Loch Awe Craggy Upland LCT7c, where the wind farm would introduce detractors to focal points and panoramas adversely affecting the character of the head of Loch Awe. Affected Landscape character types at the head of Loch Awe would include parts of: North Loch Awe Craggy Upland LCT7c, Rocky Mosaic LCT20 at Loch Awe (North of the proposal), High Tops including and South of Ben Cruachan.

Visual Impacts

We advise that the proposal would have significant visual effects from the North Loch Awe area, including Ben Cruachan and its southern approaches. The North Loch Awe area is a gateway to North Argyll, in this area the distinctive linear loch is aligned north-east to south-west between the rugged upland hills and the route to the Isles follows the north shore of Loch Awe via the A85 trunk road and the railway.

We note that from the north of Loch Awe and from Ben Cruachan the proposed wind farm would be more visible and more prominent than the existing and consented wind farms, as well as those at scoping stage.

Our advice differs from the LVIA in the ES and we provide further advice on: North Loch Awe, Ben Cruachan,

North Loch Awe / Head of Loch Awe

The head of Loch Awe is represented by a range of viewpoints and as the ZTV shows the development is widely and extensively visible across the head of Loch Awe, even taking into account the effects of intervening screening of woodlands and buildings. We consider that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the head of the Loch from a range of places including: the A85 Trunk Road, Loch Awe Village, north-west shores of Loch Awe (including Taycreggan Hotel, sections of National Cycle Route 78/Core path C173, cultural heritage sites along the north-west shore (see figure 13.5 in the ES), Annat, Loch Awe open water and islands. In addition, taking into account proposed forestry management plans that we are aware of, we advise that there would be significant effects from Kilchurn Castle, exacerbated by the confusing layout and relationship of turbines (T11, T14, and T19) with the steep slope that frames the views of the Loch.

Ben Cruachan and surrounding mountains, including popular Munros

Ben Cruachan is a highly sensitive viewpoint within the Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area 9 and the APQ and is a very popular Munro. Cruachan Dam is also a local walk and a tourist walk promoted by the Cruachan Power Station Visitor Centre. The proposal would have a significant visual effect when viewed from Ben Cruachan and its usual approach/descent via Cruachan Falls and the Dam.

This is illustrated by viewpoints (VP) 1 and 2. From VP1 Ben Cruachan the development at 10km away would be very prominent and dominant in the view, in the foreground of the craggy upland across the Loch. It would be a detractor to the view from Ben Cruachan, where other operational and consented wind farms are distant and not a main feature of the view, and we consider that the visual effect would be significant. From VP2 the development would remain dominant and would occupy the medium range of the view to where the eye is drawn (away from Power Station pylons) to Loch Awe. The turbines would be viewed across the water of the Loch, above the settled shore with turbines very prominent and breaking the skyline. The wind farm would arguably be a new feature, given the distance, minor size and upland association of An Suidhe’s 84m turbines (operational) that are barely perceptible from this VP. We also note that from VP3 Cruachan Falls the wind farm layout is less than optimal, with westernmost turbines (T1 and T2) creating extremes of vertical variation

Effects from the Munros Ben Lui within the Ben Lui Wild Land Area 6 and Beinn Ime in Loch Lomond Trossachs National Park are covered in our advice on cumulative impacts, below.

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts

The LVIA identifies no significant cumulative effects as a result of this proposal. Our assessment disagrees with this; we consider that there would be significant cumulative effects. We consider that the cumulative assessment has been undertaken with a flawed methodology and/or poor knowledge of the local area. For example; from a range of viewpoints the study states that no other wind farms can be seen; when in the field turning the head round they are clearly visible (VP13 Loch Awe Open Water, VP14 Loch Awe Boats, VP18 Fernoch) - see also comments in section 11 below.

The predicted extent and pattern of visibility within the study area will be much more extensive than that already arising from Carraig Gheal, Beinn Ghlas and An Suidhe, and this is shown clearly on the cumulative ZTV maps in the LVIA (Figures 7.20d, 7.20h, 7.20j). In terms of the cumulative baseline, even including scoping schemes on the south Loch Awe Craggy Upland, then the ZTV mapping shows how much more extensive the visibility of Upper Sonachan would be on North Loch Awe in addition to other schemes, for example the nearby Balliemeanoch and Blarghour wind farms.

We advise that cumulative effects would be significant from Eastern Munros, Ben Cruachan Area, Beinn Lora, North Loch Awe (mainly the open water).

Eastern Munros

We advise that cumulative visual effects, as viewed from Ben Ime (VP10) in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park would be considerable and significant. From this viewpoint, Upper Sonachan would occupy the mid-ground and sit within the current gap between the existing foreground proposal (Clachan Flats), and those more distant; the nearest being Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghlas.

In addition, from Ben Lui (VP9) in the Ben Lui Wild Land Area 6, the proposal would place windfarm development closer into view, with a different layout and with large turbines associated with the Loch, with cumulative effects bordering on significant. We advise that these elevated views from the east illustrate that the wind farm is in a fundamentally poor location in terms of cumulative effects.

Mitigation We advise that the impacts of Upper Sonachan wind farm, including those on the head of Loch Awe and the popular Munro Ben Cruachan within the Loch Etive Mountains Wild Land Area, would be difficult to reduce through design improvements, given the location of the wind farm.

Considerable design changes and a reduction in turbine height would be required to reduce impacts. The turbines closest to the loch (sitting below approximately AOD350m) and those at the western and eastern periphery of the higher landform group of turbines would likely need to be removed and the remaining group re-sited to achieve a layout with a better landscape fit.

These changes would alter the proposal to such an extent that would be a different proposal; however we consider that it is reasonable to expect that significant landscape visual and cumulative effects would still remain.

Additional Comments on the LVIA

The LVIA consistently underrepresents the landscape, visual and cumulative effects of the proposal in the assessment. We consider that this is primarily as a result of the approach to significance thresholds identified in the methodology, and we raised this as a potential issue at scoping. We draw attention to the cumulative assessment in the LVIA that finds the development would have no significant landscape and visual cumulative effects; we disagree with this position.

Our comments on the LVIA within the ES are not exhaustive and highlight only main issues that we consider the decision maker should be aware of. i. Setting of significance thresholds ii. Thoroughness of approach to the assessments iii. ZTV information and Viewpoint Visualisations iv. Use of the term ‘blade tip’ in the assessments v. Setting of significance thresholds

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) within the Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared, generally, in line with the requirements of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd edition), however we consider that the landscape and visual effects are consistently underrepresented in the assessments.

We consider that this is a result of the approach to significance thresholds identified in the methodology that does not accurately identify instances where we consider that a significant effect would be expected. We advise that the threshold applied in the LVIA for a significant effect, i.e. where the effect would be considered a material consideration is set too high in the methodology, and as a result the LVIA systematically fails to highlight potential significant effects, and therefore material considerations.

Forestry Commission Dated 18.12.16 and 02.11.16 – No objection

Forestry Commission Scotland’s (FCS) letter of 18th December 2016 raised an objection to the development as proposed in the Environmental Statement (ES) of October 2015. FCS have considered the ‘FEI July 2016’ in relation to the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) and Scottish Governments Control of Woodland Policy (CoWRP).

In light of the further information provided and changes made to the forest design in the ‘FEI July 2016’, FCS removes its objection, subject to the application of the condition in Annex 1. The condition is required to secure compensatory planting and production of a Long Term Forest Plan.

Transport Scotland Dated 18.10.16 - No objection

Council’s Roads Engineer Dated 03.12.15 - No objection subject to conditions

 Existing access at junction with public road to be upgraded in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD 08/001a. Access may be constructed wider than shown to allow for the abnormal loads.

 Visibility splays measuring 160m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained. No obstruction to visibility greater than 1.05m in height permitted within the visibility splays.

 A system of surface water drainage will be required to prevent the flow of water onto the public road.

 Swept path analysis to be provided. There shall be no oversail onto private land outwith the road corridor, without the landowner’s permission.

 Traffic management plan to be provided. Plan should include the construction plant and materials required for the project, including the amount of imported fill required for the construction of the access route, Plan should also show how they intend to control the traffic in both directions when delivering the wind farm components, from the A85 junction.

Members are requested to note that it would be normal practice for a planning application that this information would be provided in advance of the grant of any permission. However, as this is a S36 application and not a planning application before the Planning Authority, a condition requiring such details, to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of any works associated with the development, shall be recommended to the Energy Consents Unit should they be minded to approve the proposal.

Council’s Access Officer Dated 26.11.16 - No objection

All the Paths and Tracks listed may all be used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders of all abilities and any new paths should be of the same standard or better than those to which they connect. The level of any new road crossing a path should be tied into it so that the movement of walkers, cyclists or horse riders is not impeded.

Any gates erected on paths or tracks should be provided with a bridle gate to allow public access; in order to stop livestock from straying this should be fitted with a self-closing device.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer Dated 10.12.15 - No objection Environmental Health Officer – (Dated 07.01.16 and 26.10.16) - No objection subject to conditions

In the original response dated 07.01.16 a number of appropriate conditions were suggested including the imposition of noise immision limits and noise limits at identified dwellings, noise monitoring and mitigation in response to complaints, and controls over site lighting. Further comment was provided in response to the FEI which included the removal of one turbine and the re-siting of the sub-station/grid connection to remove any possibility of adverse noise impact on sensitive receptors and included the submission of a draft Private Water Supply Protection Plan. This has not prompted any significant change in the recommended conditions and the position of no objection remains.

Historic Environment Scotland Dated 21.12.15 - No Objection

 Content that there adequate information in ES to come to a conclusion on the application;

 In some instances the assessments and their conclusions underestimate the potential impacts of the proposed development;

 Overall broadly agree with ES assessment of setting and potential impact on most of the historic environment assets within HES’s remit;

 Concludes that the development proposal does not raise issues of national significance sufficient to warrant an objection for our historic environment interests

Marine Scotland Dated 06.10.16 - No objection

 Welcomes the selection of control sites within Fisheries assessment;

 Further clarification required on impact associated with access track on site US3;

 Welcome the content of the proposed water quality monitoring programme;

 reiterates the recommendation for post-construction sampling to continue for at least 12 months once construction has ceased, this time period would be dependent on the results from the monitoring programme during construction.

Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council (AKCC) Dated 17.1.16 - Objection

The AKCC have produced a comprehensive and detailed objection to the proposals. The initial objection response dated 17.01.16 runs to some 56 pages and contains a very detailed evaluation on the contended landscape and amenity impact of the proposal, as well as examining the legislative and policy context for the application. The main points of this objection are that:

 The proposals run contrary to national and local adopted policy;

 The proposals will have a significant adverse impact upon people, houses, settlements, recreational and residential amenity, on established local natural heritage and on established ecological and ornithological interests;  Argyll and Bute Council should recommend refusal of this application as it has no redeeming features which are genuine material considerations that would allow it to receive S36 consent. In particular it ignores the criteria contained in Schedule 9 of the EA 1989 and the adopted policies of the Local Development Plan 2015;

 AKCC has growing concerns about the proliferation of wind farm development proposals in areas that have been assessed as being constrained or highly constrained in terms of landscape capacity, in particular around Loch Awe;

 Many residences will be directly affected one way or another by the wide range of wind farm/turbine developments of which this is the latest.

Members should note that this is a brief summary of what is a lengthy objection available on both the Scottish Government and Council planning portals. Following the submission of the FEI on 12.09.16 officers understand that the AKCC intend to make further submissions.

Glenorchy and Innishail Community Council Dated 15.1.15 - Objection

Meeting held on 09.01.16. 41 members of the public and CC reported to have been present. After discussing proposals the following views were agreed:

 Will have a negative impact on sustainability of the community and highly valued environment;  The windfarm will be highly visible, whilst lying isolated from any other commercial development on the north side of Loch Awe;  Loch Awe is a fragile rural community whose economy is based upon tourism and land management and is suffering from declining population. The promotion of tourism and related activities based upon the scenic quality of Loch Awe and other locally based attractions are key components of strategy for community development. The proposed windfarm would have numerous significant, negative visual and environmental impacts on the landscape valued by residents and visitors;  Concerns over Ardbrecknish Community Water supply due to construction methodology;  Statement does not take account of reflection of the development in such a large water body.

John Muir Trust Dated 10.10.16 - Objection

Objection is raised to the proposal for the following reasons:

 These are massive structures inappropriate to the landscape of the area;

 Proposals are contrary to the following policies:

Wild Land Policy Built Development Policy Energy and Wild Land Policy National Planning Framework (3) Scottish Planning Policy (2) Scottish Natural Heritage Wild Land Areas Map

Further details in respect of the above are contained in the full consultation response.

SEPA Dated 27.03.16 and 06.10.16 - No objection

Following the submission of Further Environmental Information SEPA have withdrawn an originally expressed objection to this proposal for the reasons set out below:

 We previously objected to this application on the grounds of a lack of information on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) (PCS/143598 dated 5 January 2016). Following this we were consulted by the applicant with additional information and agreed that this would address the grounds of our objection (PCS/146341 dated 27 April 2016). The additional information and our response are set out in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the Further Environmental Information. I confirm that based on this we are now able to remove our previous objection.

 It is noted that a detailed plan for each borrow pit will be developed and agreed with key consultees. The plan would be included in the CMS which is thought will be subject to an appropriate planning condition, we are satisfied with this approach.

 We note the revised tree felling and woodland management plan (Chapter 7). As before, we are satisfied that the Forest Residue Management Plan documents are appropriate and genuine on site reuse activities in line with SEPA guidance and as such do not consider that there are any Waste Management Licence (WML) implications or significant concerns.

 We note that overall there is a reduction in the amount of waste peat to be generated, and we welcome this. We also welcome the proposed amendment to the text in relation to dewatering.

 Proposed engineering works within the water environment will require authorisation under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended).

SEPA wish reference to be made to their previous comments dated 27.03.16 which remain pertinent to this proposal.

Scottish Water Dated 23.09.16 - No objection

Ministry of Defence Dated 04.10.16 - No objection subject to a requirement for visible or infrared aviation lighting.

Civil Aviation Authority Dated 21.10.16 - No objection

Highlands and Islands Airports Limited Dated 26.9.16 - No objection

BT Radio Network Protection Dated 22.9.16 - No objection ______

(D) REPRESENTATIONS:

The period for public representations relating to the additional information requested by the S36 consents team on 23.6.16 and submitted on 12.9.16 closed on 28.10.16, following advertising of the FEI and a further period of consultation in respect of the additional information submitted. There have been some 277 representations at time of writing this report made to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit.

As this is not a planning application the Energy Consent Departments web page is where the full and formal record of representations must be recorded and not the Council’s public access system. All representations can be found on the Scottish Government Webpage related to this application under the following Link which provides the up-to-date listing of third party representations and other submissions relating to this S36 application.

http://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx

At time of writing the number representations in support is 24 and the number of objections is 253. These figures are taken from the above web site.

Supporters: The key issues raised in support of the proposal may be summarised as follows:

 Proposal will generate enough electricity to support 22,000 local homes will be provided saving around 66,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year;

 During construction an estimated £24.3 million could be spent in Scotland in addition to a wide range of economic benefits to the local economy from hotel stays through to construction work;

 easy access in relation to the A819 and the electricity network;

 limited visibility from Kilchurn Castle;

 suitable distance from homes;

 minimal cultural heritage, archaeology and wildlife on site due to its nature as a commercial forest which will be replanted following construction;

 outside protected ecological and landscape designations (with the exception of a local designation).

Objectors: The key issues raised in objections to the proposal may be summarised as follows:

 Turbines would detract from natural beauty and environment of Loch Awe which is an Area of Panoramic Quality and very sensitive countryside;

 Proposals would have an adverse Impact on visual and natural environment. Impact on bird life and bats would be devastating. After construction protected species of bird will be attracted to the site. This is especially true for immature raptors. This aspect is missing from the ES;

 Development will have an adverse impact on tourism and local businesses. Insufficient surveys provided on this matter. Turbines will be visible from tourist routes and A85;

 Area defined in Argyle and Butes Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study as an area medium sensitive to large turbines. They are in close proximity to terrain which is highly sensitive and the study points out that structures of the height of these turbines has an impact on adjacent terrain;

 There will be a potential negative impact on any hydro schemes or private water supplies whose water catchment area falls within the site boundary. There is no public water supply that side of the loch;

 High potential for noise impact on health both audible and low frequency infrasound. Studies in Finland indicate infrasound can carry through the air for many kilometres;

 There would be a damaging cumulative effect when combined with other nearby installations around Loch Awe, both sequential and simultaneous;

 Proposal does not adhere to criteria and policies laid out in the Local Development Plan or those within the SPP and NPF3;

 The wind farm is not required in order for UK to reach its targets for renewable energy. Statement made by UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 2015 stating there was enough onshore wind in the pipeline to meet UK Governments target of 11-13 GW for electricity;

 Visualisations do not accurately portray turbines in some instances. Forest replanting in volume 4 fails to show adequate visual mitigation. Forestry growth accentuates the industrial scale and incongruity of the wind farm;

 SNH visualisation of windfarms December 2014 appears not to have been followed due to a lack of “cropped” A3 images. However images and visualisations provided when taken together demonstrate the unacceptable visual impact of proposal;

 Proposals are considered contrary to Policies LDP Strat 1, LDP 6 and LDP DM1 due to their scale and location. The proposals fail to accord with the development plan and there should be a presumption against consent;

 Proposals would undermine rationale for owners buying Larach Bhan House to develop five holiday homes at the property for which planning permission exists. If proposals are allowed it will make no sense to develop this tourism business as all these holiday homes will experience proposed windfarm in their principal view across Loch Awe. Holidaymakers will be discouraged from visiting area by virtue of visual and noise disturbance impacting on outdoor activities;

 The amenity levels enjoyed by the occupants of Larach Bhan House will be adversely impacted as all principle views face directly south towards the application site and the proposals will have an “oppressive impact” upon the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by occupants of this property. A significant visual impact will occur from the wind farm which will appear as an oppressive industrialised feature. For some reason image showing considerable impact has not been submitted as part of the application pack;  No decision should be made until a more complete and appropriate visual assessment is provided which accurately reflects impact upon the many properties which will be adversely impacted by the proposals in the local area. The assessment requires to be far more robust and the current exercise should carry no weight due to its shortfalls. Not enough evaluation or weight has been given to those properties which will suffer visual impact due to the proposals. A complete list of every property which will be impacted upon requires to be provided to the decision maker;

 Proposals will have a negative impact upon the wide ranging cultural and historic significance of Loch Awe, its many and varied heritage assets and in particular its many scheduled ancient monuments and is contrary to SPP para 145;

 No baseline or predicted noise levels have been provided for Larach Bhan House, which should be rectified. Specific noise readings should be taken at this and many other properties in the area so that they can see base and predicted noise levels for their property. No decision should be made until such information has been submitted and opportunity to comment provided.

Public Consultation Exercise

Members should also note that the applicants have held community engagement events in order to present details of the scheme and receive feedback from the local community. This included newsletters posted out to all addresses within 10km of the site centre and public exhibitions were held at Portsonachan and Kilchrenan village halls. The applicants indicate work was carried out to address issues raised by the public in the preparation of the submitted Further Environmental Information.

______

(E) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: Yes

An Environmental Statement dated October 2015 was submitted in support of this S36 application. Further Environmental Information (FEI) was requested by the consents unit by letter dated 23.6.16. This FEI was provided by the applicants on 12.09.16 with representations required by 28.10.16. The ES and FEI submissions consider the following key issues:

 Planning Policy Context;  Site Selection & Project Evolution;  Project Description;  Landscape & Visual Impact;  Noise Assessment;  Ecological Assessment;  Ornithological Assessment;  Hydrology & Geology  Archaeology & Cultural Heritage  Forestry Assessment  Peat Assessment & Carbon Balance  Transport & Access  Telecommunications and air safeguarding  Socio Economics and the visitor economy  Air Quality & Climate Change;  Environmental Benefits of Renewable Energy  Land Use & Recreation  Shadow Flicker  On-site utilities  Mitigation & Residual Effects,  Cumulative Effects

A number of consultation responses were received following the submission of this application and its accompanying Environmental Statement. Some of the consultees requested further information and clarification on certain issues. A request for additional information was made by the Energy Consents Unit on 23.6.16. In response to this request Further Environmental Information to supplement the original Environmental Statement was submitted on 12.09.16. The FEI contains additional information on the following topics:

 Reduction from 19 to 18 Turbines  Relocation of substation  Updated Planning Statement  Landscape and Visual Evaluation  Design and Access Statement  Ecology  Ornithology  Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology  Noise  Access and Transportation  Cultural Heritage and Archaeology  Socio Economics, Tourism and Recreation  Shadow Flicker  Telecommunications  Aviation  Climate Change and Carbon Balance Assessment  Woodland Management and Tree Felling

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

Confirmed in SNH consultation response dated 25.10.16 following submission of additional information on 12.09.16

In our view, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly of the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required

(iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Yes

EA and FEI submission packs

An addendum to the October 2015 Planning Statement dated July 2016 has been produced by the applicants to update the following matters:

Section 2 Changes to Applicable Planning Policy Assessment Criteria

Section 3 Landscape and visual analysis and FEI conclusions

Residential Amenity

Forestry and Woodland

Geology and Peat

Other environmental and amenity issues

______

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

Members are asked to note in the context of the development plan and planning process that this application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under s.36 of the Electricity Act 1989. As part of the s.36 application process, the applicant is also seeking that the Scottish Ministers issue a Direction under s.57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that deemed planning permission be granted for the proposed development.

In such instances the Development Plan is not the starting point for consideration of Section 36 applications, as Sections 25 and 37 of the of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which establish the primacy of development plan policy in decision- making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process associated with Electricity Act applications. Nonetheless, the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 still remains an important material consideration informing the Council’s response to this proposal.

Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does however require both the applicant and the decision- maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective developer shall have regard to:

(a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.

Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b).

Consideration of the proposal against both the effect of ‘Scottish Planning Policy’ 2014 (SPP) and the adopted Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2015 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent to which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties.

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

‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015)

LDP STRAT1 Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 Development Within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 5 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy LDP 6 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP 9 Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 Maximising Our Connectivity and Reducing Our Consumption

Supplementary Guidance

SG LDP Climate Change SG LDP ENV 1: Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) SG LDP ENV 7: Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 10: Geodiversity SG LDP ENV 11: Protection of Soil and Peat Resources SG LDP ENV 13: Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality SG LDP ENV 14: Landscape SG LDP ENV 16a: Development Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 19: Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments SG LDP ENV 20: Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP SERV 6: Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation SG LDP SERV 7: Flooding and Land Erosion the Risk Framework for Development SG LDP TOUR 3 : Promoting Tourism Development Areas

Note: The above supplementary guidance has been approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes adopted policy.

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

(i) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A

 National Planning Framework  Scottish Planning Policy (2014)  Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012)  Argyll and Bute Supplementary Guidance 2 (July 2016)  Planning Advice Note 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’  Scottish Government Advice Note on Onshore Turbines (2014)  Ministerial Statements  Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, SNH Guidance (2014).  Environmental Assessment and FEI submissions;  Views of statutory and other consultees;  Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters.  Transport Scotland Traffic Counts on A85 between Dalmally and Taynult

______

G) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______

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

(I) Summary of reasons why planning authority should object to this Section 36 application:

 The proposal would become the dominant landscape characteristic of this part of Loch Awe causing significant adverse impact to its landscape quality and its primary viewpoints, due to its scale and dominance in the landscape from key visual receptors including residential properties, leisure/commercial tourist related facilities, residential properties and key transportation routes.

 The proposal will extend the influence of wind farms in an unacceptable manner to more sensitive locally designated and protected landscapes, and in particular into land on the widely visible and important northern slopes facing directly onto Loch Awe which frame and contextualise this high quality landscape designated as comprising an Area of Panoramic Quality in the Local Development Plan 2015.

 In respect of the above, the proposal conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, the adopted Local Development Plan, and the Council’s Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study and SNH design and siting guidance for windfarm developments.

 The proposal will result in cumulative landscape impact which will have a moderate adverse impact upon the wider landscape due to specific vantage points available to active recreational users. Although this issue in itself would not be a substantive reason sufficient to justify objecting to the proposal it is a supporting consideration to the recommendation that an objection should be raised to these proposals.

Note: This is a summary please refer to recommended reasons for objection on following page. ______

Author of Report: David Moore Date: 01.11.16

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 01.11.16

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO 14/01342/S36

1. By virtue of its scale, location and eye catching movement, the development would exert significantly adverse visual effects upon a range of locations where sensitive receptors in the form of residents and visitors are concentrated, including important transport routes such as the A85. If approved the proposal would result in significant and adverse local impacts upon key views and panoramas, dominating views of and from many loch-shore residential and commercial leisure uses and the A85 trunk road represented by VPs 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 13. More particularly the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set. The development itself straddles a defined craggy upland area which displays homogeneous, sloping and attractive landscape character, with variation of texture and colour added by forestry plantations. These rugged upland hills encircle the upper stretches of Loch Awe and form important gateway hills and features to North Argyll. The development would be prominent from open sections of Loch Awe and the surrounding area and would form a dominant part of the immediate backdrop and setting of Loch Awe. This contextual landscape within which the turbines will be viewed includes a range of landscape features against which the proposal would appear discordant. These attractive landscape components comprise; rugged upland hills and dominant focal point hills (including Cruach Mhor upon which the proposal is located), Loch Awe itself, the forested islands within it, and the southern bank of the loch at Ardanaiseig with its designated and attractive landscaped gardens. All of these attractive landscape features would be adversely impacted upon by the proposal. These are all important and essential components in forming the high quality of the landscape at this point against which significant and unacceptable visual impact will occur. The significantly adverse local visual impacts of the development would be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).

2. The proposal would extend the influence of wind farms in an unacceptable manner to more sensitive landscapes and sites and in particular into land designated as comprising an Area of Panoramic Quality in the Local Development Plan 2015 and to the highly visible slopes facing directly onto Loch Awe which form an important landscape setting to frame both the higher craggy landforms and the loch itself represented by VPs 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 13. More particularly the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set. In this respect the significantly adverse local landscape impact would be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).

3. The development is located within the Argyll and Bute ‘Craggy Uplands’ landscape character area defined as LCT7 “Craggy Uplands” within the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2012). This character area covers the long plateau running along the spine of the southern side of Loch Awe. By virtue of its scale, movement, layout and very prominent location on the edge of Loch Awe, the development would exert a particularly unwelcome and defining impact on the character and setting of the loch and its immediate environs causing significant adverse impact on the local landscape setting of this attractive locality. The disproportionate scale of the development, in respect of both the number and size of the turbines and the large area of hillside covered by them, relative to its receiving environment and its poor landscape fit, result in the proposal being contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).

4. The proposed development will have a moderate adverse cumulative impact on landscape quality from more distant and limited vantage points, and in particular those afforded to active recreational hillwalkers represented by VP’s 9 and 10. More particularly, from higher vantage points exemplified by VP’s 9 and 10 a substantially larger number of turbines will be visible within the landscape, altering it in a manner to make the landscape less natural and attractive. The addition of Upper Sonachan Windfarm into the landscape increases clutter and disruption to the open and sloping upland and hilly landscape within which it will be located. This distinct landscape area is both backdropped and framed in the distance by higher craggy mountains and ridges. This essentially homogeneous upland and gently sloping landscape, with intermittent forest planting areas, already contains two windfarms visible from higher vantage points. The addition of a third is considered to spread the impact and clutter of such industrial scale windfarm features into the upland area introducing additional prominent industrial scale features which would reduce landscape quality and attractiveness from long distance panoramic views. There is a significant concern that the addition of Upper Sonachan could lead to windfarms defining the character of this upland landscape area rather than being set within it. These matters, when considered in combination with the matters set out at reasons 1-3 above, support raising objection to this proposal as being contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (2014), and to Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014). APPENDIX A - PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME

In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an onshore power generating station, in this case, a wind farm, with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given would include a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority.

The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.

In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken in the matter.

The conclusion of this report is to recommend that objection be raised to this proposal on the grounds of significantly adverse landscape, visual and cumulative impacts.

It is not necessary at this point in the process to recommend conditions in the event that the project is authorised by the Scottish Ministers, for if they are minded to approve the project regardless of an objection by the Planning Authority, there would be opportunity to suggest appropriate conditions as part of the process of Public Local Inquiry which would require to be convened in such circumstances.

B. SETTLEMENT STRATEGY

Policy LDP 6 of the Adopted Local Development Plan sets out the Council’s policy for renewable energy developments, in accordance with SPP 2014. In addition there is also the Supplementary Planning Guidance. SPP 2 contains a Spatial Framework which has been prepared in accordance with SPP 2014. The Supplementary Guidance (including the Spatial Framework) has been through the consultation stages and the Council agreed to send notification of intention to adopt to Scottish Ministers at their September 2016 meeting. At time of writing this is the current situation which will be updated as required at time of any change in the current position. The proposed development is within the defined Countryside Zone. In special cases Policy LDP DM 1 states that ‘large scale’ development in the Countryside zone may be supported if it accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). This proposal constitutes ‘large scale’ development in the countryside. However, it is not normal practice for an ACE to be undertaken for a wind farm which has been subject to an Environmental Statement (where consideration of alternatives is required as part of the EIA process and an LVIA will have been undertaken).

Each development management zone is subject to policy LDP DM 1: Development within the Development Management Zones. LDP DM 1 requires proposals to be consistent with all other Development Plan Policies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the scale and location of the proposal will integrate sympathetically with the landscape, or without giving rise to significant adverse consequences for the visual amenity of its surroundings. For the reasons detailed below in this report, it is considered that this proposal does not satisfy Local Development Plan policy or associated and approved guidance in respect of wind farm development.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms and policies and Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP 3, LDP 6 and SG LDP ENV 13 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan’ (2015). It would also fail to accord with the guidance given in the ‘Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study’ (2012) and in the ‘Siting & Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape’ (SNH 2014).

C. LOCATION, NATURE & DESIGN OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is for the erection of 18 wind turbines. The following elements are included in the application:

• Erection of 18 wind turbines 136.5m high to blade tip (85m to hub, Rotor Diameter 103m) with an individual output of up to 3.4MW with a total installed capacity of 64.6MW. (Revised at FEI submission stage from initial proposal for 19 turbines); • Crane pad hard-standing areas adjacent to each turbine; • Formation of new onsite access tracks (approximately 5.5km) including 1.1km for the Forestry Link Road and approximately 10.3km of upgraded existing tracks together with formation of passing places and associated watercourse crossings; • On site control building underground cabling and an onsite grid connection substation (Revised substation location at FEI stage); • A permanent meteorological mast up to 85m in height and associated cane pad area; • Cable routes from turbines to the onsite substation; • Amended vehicular access off the A819.

The general design of the turbines and ancillary structures follows current wind energy practice. The design of the sub-station is generally acceptable and subject to appropriate detailing and finishing, it could integrate appropriately into the location suggested, taking the appearance of a traditional building. D. LANDSCAPE IMPACT

Officers consider that the adverse impact upon the landscape is the substantive issue in recommending that an objection be raised to the current proposals. Justification for this approach in respect of policy analysis is set out below:

Scottish Planning Policy

Officers have had regard to SPP advice in respect of the level of protection set out at P39 Table 1. “Spatial Frameworks”. Officers acknowledge that the application site is not afforded protection under Group 1 definition.

The proposal must therefore be considered under Groups 2 and 3 of SPP policy advice owing to the fact that seven of the proposed 18 turbines have now been identified in the FEI as being located within an SPP Group 2 location and sections of the proposed access track also fall within a Group 2 area.

This is further clarified at Figure 1 and Appendix 1 of the report related to SG 2 approved by PPSL on 22 June 2016 and which is soon to be submitted to the Scottish Ministers for adoption. Having been approved by PPSL this report has the status of being a material planning consideration at time of writing this report.

The SPP defines this Group 2 criteria approach at table 1, stating that group 2 locations are:

an area not exceeding 2km around cities, towns and villages identified on the local development plan with an identified settlement envelope or edge.

carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat.

In respect of any turbines falling within a within Group 2 area the SPP requires that the applicants:

Demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation”

The application site is partially within Group 2 land due to the following:

1) Seven of the 18 turbines are located within 2km of the settlement boundaries of either Ardbrecknish or Portsonachan 2) The construction of part of the access road will be on land identified as deep peat

Officers are of the view that although seven of the turbines fall within Group 2 no specific issue in raised in respect of this designation. The seven turbines which are within 2km of settlement boundary(s) will be substantially screened from views available from the settlements due to topography and tree screening and no objections to the proposal have been raised in respect of impact upon deep peat by SNH in respect of construction of the access road. It is therefore the opinion of officers that the proposal should be evaluated in respect of Category 3 criteria set out at paragraph 169 of the SPP and as set out in policy LDP 6.

In respect of those 18 turbines which fall within a SPP Group 3 location, the SPP states that:

“Beyond groups 1 and 2, wind farms are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria”

Paragraph 169 of the SPP provides the criteria which should be taken into consideration in evaluating such proposals as set out below:

• net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities; • the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets; • effect on greenhouse gas emissions; • cumulative impacts – planning authorities should be clear about likely cumulative impacts arising from all of the considerations below, recognising that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented energy development may limit the capacity for further development; • impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker; • landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land; • effects on the natural heritage, including birds; • impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator; • public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes identified in the NPF; • impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings; • impacts on tourism and recreation; • impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording; • impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised; • impacts on road traffic; • impacts on adjacent trunk roads; • effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk; • the need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration; • opportunities for energy storage; and • the need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration.

Officers consider that having regard to the above SPP criteria, which reflect those contained in adopted policy SG LDP 6 that the proposal is, in respect of both Group 2 and Group 3 located turbines, not acceptable with regard to:

 impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact;  landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land;

 impacts on tourism and recreation;

 visual impacts on adjacent trunk roads;

 cumulative impacts – planning authorities should be clear about likely cumulative impacts arising from all of the considerations below, recognising that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented energy development may limit the capacity for further development.

Officers do not contend that the Group 2 or 3 located turbines proposal are contrary or give rise to concern in respect of other evaluation criteria and this will be a matter for other consultees to form opinion on. It is potential conflict with the above criteria which officers consider form the basis for lodging an objection to the current proposals, whether considered Group 2 or Group 3 in terms of location.

Given that the majority of the criteria raise no issue for objection by the Planning Authority in respect of SPP Group 2 or Group 3 located turbines Officers wish to clarify to Members that it is considered that the harm to the landscape and designated Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) is considered so great as to outweigh compliance or support for the proposals which may be afforded through the other criteria set out in SPP.

This is an appropriate approach to adopt in the weighing up of material considerations in the planning balance, and assessing the compliance of the proposal with SPP and other material advice and balancing that against the level of harm which will arise, particularly in the context of accepted significant localised landscape and amenity impact which has been accepted by the applicants. Officers can only advise Members on the weighting they consider is appropriate, and it is for Members to determine whether they agree with this evaluation and weighting.

Officers would advise Members that they consider that the level of harm caused to the high quality local landscape and APQ is of such significance that compliance with other criteria set out in SPP or support provided in other material documentation is outweighed by the significant and defining adverse landscape impact in this instance.

Impact Upon Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ)

The proposal is located within an APQ as defined in the Local Development Plan. In respect of this designation proposals have to be considered against the following policy framework:

In respect of the status of APQ as local landscape protection areas SPP states that:

196. International, national and locally designated areas and sites should be identified and afforded the appropriate level of protection in development plans. Reasons for local designation should be clearly explained and their function and continuing relevance considered when preparing plans. Buffer zones should not be established around areas designated for their natural heritage importance. Plans should set out the factors which will be taken into account in development management. The level of protection given to local designations should not be as high as that given to international or national designations. 197. Planning authorities are encouraged to limit non-statutory local designations to areas designated for their local landscape or nature conservation value:

 the purpose of areas of local landscape value should be to:– safeguard and enhance the character and quality of a landscape which is important or particularly valued locally or regionally; or  promote understanding and awareness of the distinctive character and special qualities of local landscapes; or  safeguard and promote important local settings for outdoor recreation and tourism.

It is considered that the designation of the APQ within the adopted Local Development Plan clearly accords with these objectives and the adherence to these stated policy objectives is a material consideration in forming a view on this windfarm proposal.

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan

Areas of Panoramic Quality are defined in LDP, Adopted 2015 glossary as “these are areas of regional importance in terms of their landscape quality, which were previously identified as ‘Regional Scenic Areas’ in the former Strathclyde Structure Plan.”

The current policy position on the Areas of Panoramic Quality is set out in the Written Statement policy LDP 3, Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 and delineated on the proposals maps of the current and recently adopted Local Development Plan 2015.

“Areas of Panoramic Quality – these are areas of regional importance in terms of their landscape quality which were previously identified as ‘Regional Scenic Areas’ in the former Strathclyde Structure Plan.”

SG LDP 13 states:

“This policy provides additional detail to policy LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment of the Adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

Argyll and Bute Council will resist development in, or affecting, an Area of Panoramic Quality where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless it is adequately demonstrated that:

(A) Any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance;

In all cases the highest standards, in terms of location, siting, design, landscaping, boundary treatment and materials, and detailing will be required within Areas of Panoramic Quality. Developments will be expected to be consistent with Policy LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design, associated SG and the relevant Argyll and Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment.”

It is therefore the opinion of officers that impacting significantly upon the local setting defined by the APQ has the consequence of impacting upon the character and appearance of a previously regionally identified area of landscape importance, contrary to the endorsed and adopted policies of LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 13.

Officers have acknowledged previously in this report that local designations in respect of wind farm proposals require to be considered within the remit of Table 1 and Paragraph 169 of the SPP where a more favourable strategic planning policy framework stance is set for windfarm developments in such local landscape designations (such as APQ’s) than would be applicable to other forms of development.

However it is also clear from the SPP that that regard has to be had on the likely level of harm to landscape within any turbines in either a Group 2 or Group 3 location. It is therefore perfectly reasonable, even within this more permission policy framework within the SPP for Group 3 locations to form a view that the harm caused by the proposals to this important and APQ designated local landscape is unacceptable and the substantive and defining matter in considering these proposals.

Having regard to the above it is to be noted that the applicants in their Environmental Statement accept that the proposal will have a “significant” localised impact. Indeed In their submissions in the non-technical summary at page 5 they state, inter alia, that:

“The assessment concludes that the proposed wind park will have a localised significant effect upon the host landscape character area and the adjacent areas: Craggy Uplands, North Loch Awe Craggy Uplands and Rocky Mosaic and the Area of Panoramic Quality (a local designation) for which it sits in. However, it predicts that the proposed wind park would not be of sufficient scale to influence the character of the wider landscape to such an extent that it would become the dominant and defining element of it”.

It is further stated that:

“The visual impacts of the proposed wind park on the majority of road and the rail network within the study area are also not predicted to be significant, mainly due to the limited visibility of the site from these routes and the brief nature of any views that are experienced. The assessment concludes that significant effects would be confined to a small section of the A85, and the adjacent railway, the B845 and the A819 and B840 in the vicinity of the site.”

Officers consider that the above evaluation understates the impact of the proposal on views available to road users of the A85 in particular. Although it is accepted that at some parts the A85 has screening which assist in obscuring the views of the proposal, it will be both visible and highly intrusive for sections of the road within the local area and will be viewed by a considerable number of road users.

The proposals will in officers opinion visually dominate and adversely impact upon the attractive setting of Loch Awe in a manner which completely changes the currently attractive local landscape character and APQ. The various juxtapositions and sensitive receptors where the windfarm will be visible from, and causing “significant impact”, is considered to be a substantive and defining matter which counts against the approval of the current proposals and convinces officers that an objection should be lodged. ‘Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012’ (LWECS)

The Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2012 was developed by Argyll & Bute with support from SNH to inform strategic planning and provide guidance on constraints and opportunities for wind energy development to help secure good quality renewables development in appropriate locations.

The study considers the sensitivity of the landscape character types on mainland Argyll and Bute up to 130m (large turbines); however for clarity we confirm that we consider the findings to be relevant also for the larger 136.5m turbines proposed at Upper Sonachan.

The Capacity Study is clear in its section on ‘How to Use this Study’ that landscape character types often have fluid boundaries with a gradual transition between character types, and that also as wind turbines are tall structures they are likely to have an influence on adjacent character types. The development is sited straddling a transitional area.

The proposal straddles the Craggy Upland LCT & and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c with the turbines sited at the edge of the mapped Craggy Upland 7 LCT where it abuts the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland 7c. For clarification all the turbine units are within area LCT 7 although their influence extends to other areas due to their scale and location. The site location would be prominent from the open sections of Loch Awe, would be part of the immediate backdrop and setting of Loch Awe and would intrude into important and attractive landscape views to and from the loch.

Having considered the landscape effects of the proposal it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Capacity Study, both in terms of the Detailed Sensitivity Assessments (Chapter 5), and in the Summary of Findings and Conclusions (Chapter 8).

Officers also consider the design of the wind farm results in a poor landscape fit and is contrary to the best practice guidance set out in the SNH publication ‘Siting and designing Windfarms in the Landscape’. The vertical variation between the lowest and highest turbine on the hillside is approximately the full overall height of the proposed turbines themselves and therefore would fail to achieve a visually balanced, simple and consistent image when viewed from a range of the selected viewpoints. In many views the turbines would be seen as randomly spaced large turbines, with a poor relationship to landform where partial skylining of blades and towers would occur.

It is considered that this would result in a visually dominating and incoherent complex image and identity in relation to its site and its surroundings. This emphasises the landscape and visual impacts and detracts from the landscape and visual amenity of this area.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and SNH concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.

Cumulative Landscape Impact

Officers have considered carefully whether cumulative impact will occur due to the proximity of existing windfarms as at Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghlas which are visible from a limited number of vantage points where the proposal at Upper Sonachan can also be viewed. In respect of potential cumulative impact the applicants themselves state within their FEI submissions on 12.9.16 that:

“the proposed wind park is judged by the Applicant to potentially have a ‘moderate’ level of additional cumulative effect which would be adverse but not significant, for the reasons set out in the ES and the FEI. The extent of the predicted cumulative effect is shown on FEI Figure 2.1b Approximate Extent of Moderate Cumulative Effects; the pattern of the emerging cumulative situation is examined in FEI Figure 2.1c Pattern Analysis of Key Cumulative Schemes (see attachments FYI).”

More particularly, from higher vantage points exemplified by VP’s 9 and 10 a larger “swathe” of turbines will be visible within the landscape, altering it in a manner to make the landscape less natural and attractive. The addition of Upper Sonachan Windfarm to such views increases visual impact upon this attractive landscape by introducing additional prominent industrial scale features which are harmful alterations which reduce landscape quality and attractiveness from long distance panoramic views

After careful consideration, it is not considered that cumulative visual impact concerns on their own would be sufficient to raise an objection to the proposals. However, officers agree with the applicant’s conclusions that a ‘moderate adverse’ cumulative impact will occur. This is considered to be a material consideration in determining that an objection should be raised to the current proposals. Cumulative impact is therefore considered to be a contributory factor, but not in itself a defining matter, for raising objection to the current proposals.

Officers consider that in respect of the 5km ‘significant impact boundary’ set out in the FEI encompassing the location of Carraig Gheal and Beinn Ghias wind farms, the proposal would not cause cumulative impact when viewed in combination with the current proposal from within this defined area of significant impact (FEI Figure 2.1a). This, as a consequence, has the effect of highlighting the fact that these other two wind farms have significantly less impact on sensitive receptors than the current proposals, both in the context of the general landscape setting of Loch Awe, the APQ and views from the A85.

In the opinion of officers, the current proposals and their proposed location contrasts unfavourably in terms of landscape fit with the more appropriately scaled and located existing windfarms. The more limited impact they already exert upon on sensitive receptors reinforces that the current proposal is less acceptably located in relation to protective landscape designations.

E. VISUAL IMPACT

Visual impact relates to the proposal’s visibility and its impacts on views, as experienced by people. In determining the proposal’s visual impact, the layout of the wind farm has been assessed from key representative viewpoints. Visually sensitive viewpoints include those where there are views to, or from, designated landscapes; however, sensitivity is not confined to designated interests. Visually sensitive viewpoints can include those which are frequently visited by people (such as well-used transport corridors, tourist roads, or picnic spots), settlements where people live, other inhabited buildings or viewpoints which have a landscape value that people appreciate (and which they might visit for recreational pursuits or areas for hill walking, cycling or education).

In order to assess the visual impact, the developer has provided a series of viewpoints identified to reflect the sensitivity of receptors. These are located relative to local settlements, transportation corridors, places of recreational/tourism value and known popular viewpoints. It is accepted that photomontages and other visual information can only give an indication of the relative scale of the proposals in relation to the surrounding landscape and that a particular viewpoint may not exactly inform on the extent to which views are available in the locality in terms of the extent to which the viewpoint is available. This is particularly important in respect of those areas where there is a high degree of visibility from a sensitive receptor.

List of Viewpoints assessed: (amended viewpoint pack dated September 2016)

VP 1: Ben Cruachan Summit VP 2: Ben Cruachan Dam VP 3: Cruachan Falls Railway Station VP 4: A85 Layby VP 5: St Conans Kirk VP 6: Loch Awe Hotel VP 7: Kilburn Castle VP 8: B9074 Glen Orchy VP 9: Ben Lui VP 10: Bienn Ime VP 11: A819 Glen Aray VP 12: A819/B840 Junction VP 13: Loch Awe Open Water VP 14: Loch Awe Boats 19 VP 15: B840 Portsinachan VP 16: Finchairn Castle VP 17: Kilmaha VP 18: Fernoch VP 19: Taychreggan Hotel VP 20: Kilchrenan War Memorial (*substantial impact on village and approach road) VP 21: Barachander VP 22: Beinn Lora VP 23: Ardchattan Priory VP 24: Na Maoilean

Visibility of the proposal and significant landscape impact coincides with areas where highly sensitive receptors are located and results in significant intrusion in key views and loch side panoramas, dominating views of and from loch shore views and tourist related facilities and the A85 trunk Road.

Due to the proposal’s scale, open location and the manner in which the landscape is experienced, it will be extensively visible within the local area. Importantly, these areas of visibility often coincide with locations frequented by residents, tourists and visitors and are therefore experienced by large numbers of sensitive receptors who travel to and through this area wishing to experience the high quality landscape. The A85 in particular affords extensive visibility of the proposals.

It is considered that the proposal would introduce unacceptable large scale and visually incongruous features into the landscape which would be both out of character and extensively visible from surrounding roads and sensitive receptors. This impact being accentuated by the rotation of the turbine blades, further drawing the eye to these turbine structures which would dominate, re-define and unacceptably impact upon important landscape settings and views and significantly harm the high quality landscape within which they would be set.

The proposal will therefore be visually prominent in views from key transport routes, recreational areas and residential properties in the Loch Awe area which are important for residents, local communities and tourists. The proposal also impinges unacceptably on sensitive panoramas and important views.

Officers agree with the position adopted by SNH in their objection to the proposal that the applicant’s LVIA underestimates the visual impact that development of this scale and prominence will exert on sensitive landscape around the A85 transport corridor in particular, which will result in the development exerting significant adverse consequences for visual amenity whilst being experienced by large numbers of receptors. Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of SPP and Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms; Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones; LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan. It also fails to accord with landscape and other guidance published by the Council and SNH concerning the siting of windfarms in the landscape.

F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

SNH, Scottish Water and SEPA are content that subject to the imposition of appropriate management operations and conditions placed upon any grant of consent that no grounds of objection arise in respect of any potential ecological or habitat impact.

SNH have confirmed by response dated 25.10.16 that given the above no Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to support the current proposals.

It is noted that the Forestry Commission (FC) have made reference to tree felling, replacement planting regimes and potential conflict with bats. Officers understand that a suggested condition to address these matters will be proposed by the FC in future submissions to the Scottish Government.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ecological interests, with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

G. ORNITHOLOGICAL IMPACT

SNH have removed previous objections in respect of ornithological matters by letter dated 25.10.16 following additional submissions by the applicants on 12.09.16 as part of the FEI submission, stating that:

The FEI July 2016 included the additional winter of bird survey work hence completing the overall survey and assessment. No additional eagle use of the wind farm area was recorded. Since March 2016 the proposed development of Balliemeanoch wind farm has been formally withdrawn. This removes the potential for cumulative impacts with that development. The FEI contained a revised PAT Model, an assessment of risks of impacts on the SPA and also answered the question over simultaneous view shed monitoring which may have impacted on collision risk modelling. Due to the above we are able to retract our objections made in section 2.2 and 2.3 of our previous response dated 9th March 2016. In addition we also advise that, in our view, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly of the Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent, from the point of view of ornithological interests, with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

H. HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL IMPACT

No significant hydrological or hydrogeological issues have been identified. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard provided that the detailed design and management of the works is undertaken in accordance with the details specified in the Environmental Statement.

Neither SEPA or Scottish Water have raised objection on these matters at time of writing.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of hydrology and hydrogeological impact the proposal is consistent with the provisions of: Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP DM 1: Development Within the Development Management Zones and LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

I. MANAGEMENT OF PEAT/SOIL

In their response of 25.10.16 in respect of Carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat SNH commented that:

We agree with the conclusion drawn in Ch.3 section 3.4.5 of the FEI July 2016 that the majority of the existing peatland resource will be tending towards a M19 habitat type (eg. disturbed from historical management). We advise that the measures cited in section 2.6 of our response dated 9th March 2016, which are refined further in FEI July 2016 appendix 5.1 page 9, should be implemented so as to achieve maximum mitigation in terms of reducing further disturbance and protecting residual pockets of M17 habitat.

SEPA have commented that:

We note that overall there is a reduction in the amount of waste peat to be generated, and we welcome this. We also welcome the proposed amendment to the text in relation to dewatering.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the management of peat and soils the proposal is consistent with the provisions of policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables and LDP 10: Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and Scottish Planning Policy 2014. J. BORROW PITS

The use of borrow pits have been indicated, albeit, they have not been submitted in detail. The Council would expect these to be the subject of separate minerals applications.

K. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT IMPACT

Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has no objection to the proposal. They are content that there is sufficient information in the ES and FEI to come to a conclusion on the application. Whilst, they consider some elements of the methodology presented in the cultural heritage chapter problematic, they are content that these issues have not had a significant impact on the assessment itself.

HES agree with the conclusion of the ES that there will be some impacts on the settings of a number of heritage assets. However, they are content that in no instance are these of such a level as to warrant an objection.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in regard to the impact it will have on any sites of historical or archaeological significance.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development, LDP 3: Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; and LDP 9: Development Setting, Layout and Design.

L. TOURISM & RECREATIONAL IMPACT

The degree to which wind turbines influence the decision as to whether tourists should visit or return to an area, is open to debate. In dismissing an appeal for a windfarm at Corlarach in Cowal, the Reporter was persuaded that resource based tourism founded partly on landscape and scenery was important to Argyll and Bute, in the context of a local economy which is heavily dependent upon the tourism sector and its associated employment. Accordingly, development with significantly adverse landscape impacts has been recognised as having potential to devalue the attraction of Argyll as a tourism destination.

Opinions and attitudes towards wind farms have been the subject of several public opinion surveys over the past 20 years. In particular, the report of the Sustainable Development Commission Wind Power in the UK (2005) summarises the findings of 24 surveys conducted between 1992 and 2005, and reports that across these studies, an average of 80% of respondents support the development of wind energy technologies. The ES also refers to the 2003 MORI survey undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) which concludes that people were three times more likely to say they felt their local wind farm had a positive impact on the area (20%) than as they were to say it had a negative impact (7%). People living within 5 km of the local wind farm held the most positive views with 45% saying they thought the overall impact had been positive and only 6% saying they thought it had been negative. In a more recent appeal decision (dismissed 11th July 2013), against refusal of a single wind turbine (84m to blade tip) on land north-east of Redesdale House, Skipness, the Reporter made a cogent point with regard to reference made by the appellant to research on the relationship of wind farms and tourism. He took the view that available surveys and research relate to a pattern of wind farm development which has come about under a fully developed planning system. They provide no evidence of the effect on tourists (and the tourism industry) had there been no such system in operation, or if it had been operated less carefully – for example by permitting an obtrusive turbine in a fine landscape traversed by important tourist routes. The Reporter therefore gave little weight in deciding the appeal to the conclusions of surveys referred to by the appellant in support of his proposal.

What is clear, is that appropriately sited and scaled developments with limited consequences for landscape character, scenic quality and tourism assets have less potential to influence the decisions of those who might prove sensitive to developments than those forms of wind power development which are more prominently sited and of larger scale, such that they are less readily capable of assimilation in their landscape setting.

Whilst it is not possible to be conclusive about the extent of these impacts, or to quantify them in a manner which would warrant a specific reason for refusal based upon conflict with tourism economy interests, it is reasonable to conclude that any proposal which will impinge on important views and the landscape and scenic qualities of an area which is valued as a recreational and tourism resource, will not be in the interests of the tourism economy.

VisitScotland, as Scotland’s National Tourism Organisation, has a strategic role to develop Scottish tourism in order to get the maximum economic benefit for the country. It exists to support the development of the tourism industry in Scotland and to market Scotland as a quality destination. VisitScotland were consulted on this proposal in their capacity as Scotland’s National Tourism Organisation.

While VisitScotland understands and appreciates the importance of renewable energy, tourism is crucial to Scotland’s economic and cultural well-being. It sustains a great diversity of businesses throughout the country. According to a recent independent report by Deloitte, tourism generates £11 billion for the economy and employs over 200,000 - 9% of the Scottish workforce. Tourism provides jobs in the private sector and stimulates the regeneration of urban and rural areas.

One of the Scottish Government and VisitScotland’s key ambitions is to grow tourism revenues and make Scotland one of the world’s foremost tourist destinations. This ambition is now common currency in both public and private sectors in Scotland, and the expectations of businesses on the ground have been raised as to how they might contribute to and benefit from such growth.

Importance of scenery to tourism

Scenery and the natural environment have become the two most important factors for visitors in recent years when choosing a holiday location. The importance of this element to tourism in Scotland cannot be underestimated. The character and visual amenity value of Scotland’s landscapes is a key driver of our tourism product: a large majority of visitors to Scotland come because of the landscape, scenery and the wider environment, which supports important visitor activities such as walking, cycling wildlife watching and visiting historic sites.

The VisitScotland Visitor Experience Survey (2011/12) confirms the basis of this argument with its ranking of the key factors influencing visitors when choosing Scotland as a holiday location. In this study, over half of visitors rated scenery and the natural environment as the main reason for visiting Scotland.

Taking tourism considerations into account - VisitScotland suggest that full consideration is also given to the Scottish Government’s 2007 research on the impact of wind farms on tourism. In its report, there are recommendations for planning authorities which could help to minimise any negative effects of wind farms on the tourism industry. The report also notes that planning consideration would be greatly assisted if the developers produced a Tourist Impact Statement as part of the EIA, and that planning authorities may wish to consider the following factors to ensure that any adverse local impacts on tourism are minimised:

 The number of tourists travelling past en route elsewhere  The views from accommodation in the area  The relative scale of tourism impact i.e. local and national  The potential positives associated with the development  The views of tourist organisations, i.e. local tourist businesses or Visit Scotland

Conclusion

Given the importance of the tourism economy in Argyll and Bute, and the fact that visitors are largely drawn by the natural qualities of the area, including scenic assets, it can be concluded that developments with significantly adverse landscape and visual impacts are unlikely to be in the interests of the local tourism economy. Nonetheless in the absence of conclusive evidence to demonstrate that wind farms necessarily deter repeat visits by tourists it is not considered that conflict with tourism interests warrants a separate reason for refusal in this case.

It should also be noted that Loch Awe and its environs, including the application site, are identified in the adopted Local Development Plan 2015 as being located within a “Tourism Development Area” where SG LDP TOUR 3 “Promoting Tourism Development Areas” is applicable. This states that:

The Tourism Development Areas shown on the Economic Diagram in the LDP contain significant opportunities for the sustainable growth of the Argyll and Bute tourism industry.

These areas will be promoted by a range of partners (HIE, SE, FCS, Local tourist organisations and VisitScotland) to encourage the further development of new high quality tourism developments that are intended to add to the appeal of Argyll and Bute as a compelling destination for tourists and also as a better place to live for local residents.

Wherever practicable existing infrastructure will be utilised and best use will be made of all modes of transport to access new sites Applications for new tourism developments will also be subject to all other policies and SG of the LDP.

It is the opinion of officers that the significance of tourism to this area merits specific commentary given the designation of much of the area under SG LDP TOUR 3 “Promoting Tourism Development Areas”. The environs of the application site have a significant number of tourist attractions as well as providing extensive opportunities for recreational use of the hills and water around Loch Awe. Specific larger tourist related facilities include the following:

Loch Awe Boats Loch Awe Hotel Taychreggan Hotel Ardanaiseig Hotel, garden and designed landscape St Conan’s Kirk Cruachan Dam and Visitors Centre Kilchurn Castle Duncan Ban MacIntyre Monument

All of these important attractions will to some degree rely on the landscape quality as part of their attraction, bringing visitors to the area to take part in both passive and active recreational uses.

For clarity no objection related to the impact upon tourism is raised given the inconclusive information on this matter which has been previously acknowledged. However the SPP at para 169 does advise that consideration should be given to “impacts on tourism and recreation”, and on this basis, should other matters be finely balanced in determining the application, it is suggested that a “precautionary approach” should be taken in respect of potential impact upon tourism interests in the area given the importance of these to the local economy and local communities.

Having due regard to the above, as far as tourism interests are concerned, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SPP and Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 3: Protecting, Conserving and Enhancing Our Outstanding Environment Together of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

M. NOISE, LIGHTING & AIR QUALITY

Technically, there are two quite distinct types of noise sources produced by a wind turbine – the mechanical noise produced by the machine and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air. The Report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI), (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions.

A further report produced by Hayes McKenzie for DECC entitled “An Analysis of How Noise Impacts are Considered in the Determination of Wind Farm Planning Applications” suggested that best practice guidance is required to confirm and, where necessary, clarify and add to the way ETSU-R-97 should be implemented in practice. This report also concludes that there is no evidence of health affects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by turbines.

The most conclusive summary of the implications of low frequency wind farm noise for planning policy following on from the Hayes McKenzie report is given by the UK Government’s statement regarding the finding of the Salford University Report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise (September 2011). This study concluded that although Aerodynamic Modulation cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of Aerodynamic Modulation resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were 4 cases where Aerodynamic Modulation appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for 3 out of these 4 sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing.

The Environmental Protection Officer has considered the information provided in both the Environmental Statement (ES) and Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI), including the assessment of noise and vibration and has raised no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of noise and air quality the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

N. SHADOW FLICKER & ICE THROW (EQUIPMENT SAFETY)

Government guidance advises that if separation is provided between turbines and nearby dwellings (as general rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no concerns or objections in respect of these matters having responded twice to the proposals. Therefore no issue or reason for refusal related to these matters is supported in this case

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of ice throw and shadow flicker the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

O. TELEVISION RECEPTION

Television reception can be affected by the presence of turbines although this has become less of a problem since the switchover from analogue to digital broadcasting. In the event that reception is impaired then it is the developer’s responsibility to rectify the problem. This would need to be secured by condition in the event that consent is approved.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of television reception the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

P. AVIATION MATTERS

The Civil Aviation Authority does not object to the proposal having reviewed the proposals. The MOD have requested that appropriate lighting or infra-red lighting is used on some of the peripheral turbines but raise no objections to the scheme.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of aviation matters the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

Q. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE TO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Telecommunications operators have been consulted to determine whether their systems would be affected by electro-magnetic radiation associated with electricity generation. SPP and Local Development Plan Policy highlights telecommunications interference as a material consideration in considering the acceptability of wind turbines.

BT Network Protection have studied the proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links and have concluded that, the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks. BT Radio Network Protection have confirmed they have no objection as this proposal will not affect their radio network.

The Joint Radio Company does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that in terms of the above the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

R. ROAD TRAFFIC IMPACT

The Council’s Area Roads Manager has no objection to the proposal which would take access from an A class road, but requests the conditions to address:

• Existing access at junction with public road to be upgraded in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD 08/001a. Access may be constructed wider than shown to allow for the abnormal loads.

• Visibility splays measuring 160m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained. No obstruction to visibility greater than 1.05m in height permitted within the visibility splays.

• A system of surface water drainage will be required to prevent the flow of water onto the public road.

• Swept path analysis to be provided. There shall be no oversail onto private land outwith the road corridor, without the landowners permission. • Traffic management plan to be provided. Plan should include the construction plant and materials required for the project, including the amount of imported fill required for the construction of the access route, Plan should also show how they intend to control the traffic in both directions when delivering the wind farm components, from the A85 junction.

Furthermore, officers consider that no work should start on site until the applicant has provided the following information, for approval in writing by Argyll and Bute Council:

- A Traffic Management Plan, which should include details of all materials, plant, equipment, components and labour required during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases;

- A detailed method statement in relation to access and transport of materials, plant and equipment;

Transport Scotland has no objection to the proposal but will require any abnormal load traffic on the trunk road network to be agreed in advance.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan.

S. INFRASTRUCTURE

No requirement for public water or foul drainage connection is identified and the Environmental Protection Officer has not raised any concerns over impact on private water supplies.

In additional no current objections on such matters have been received from Scottish Water, SEPA or SNH. Having due regard to the above it is concluded that in terms of drainage and water supply there is insufficient information to conclude that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1: Sustainable Development; and LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

T. GRID NETWORK & CABLES

Connection to the National Grid is not a matter of land use policy, however, it should be considered ‘in the round’ as part of the planning application process.

No objections have been raised in respect of these matters by any formal consultees.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms. U. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT

According to the SPP net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities (para. 169) are material considerations in the determination of energy infrastructure projects.

Member’s attention should also be drawn to the fact that the proposal will bring benefits. More particularly it is stated that the proposal will:

 Result in £83.6m capital investment (including turbine manufacturing) with up to £5.4m being spent locally

 For the duration of construction support up to 33 (FTE) local jobs in Argyll and Bute and 147 (FTE) jobs in Scotland

 Operation phase could result in annual expenditure of £4.6m and directly support up to 5 (FTE) local jobs

 Other socio economic and employment benefits could also arise due to pre- construction felling works and in relation to other phases of the proposed development.

Members are requested to note that the FEI confirms that the removal of one of the turbines will result in a reduction in generation capacity by 5.3% and this would result in a similar reduction in the envisaged socio economic benefits. Officers accept that this 5.3% reduction does not materially alter the weight which should be afforded to the benefits of the proposal as set out above.

The applicants also refer to predicted financial community benefits in their submissions. However Community Benefit is not considered to be a ‘material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. In the event that permission were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit, either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process.

In reaching our conclusions we have had regard to those factors which weigh in favour of the development – the presumption in favour of sustainable development established by SPP, the contribution the project can make to renewable energy targets, local economic benefits etc. but notwithstanding these benefits, when weighed in the balance against the local environmental shortcomings of the proposal, and having regard to views expressed by consultees and third parties, officers are of the view that the scale of development proposed on this site remains unacceptable.

V. DECOMMISSIONING

Should Scottish Ministers be minded to support the proposal a requirement for decommissioning and site restoration should be included in the conditions recommended by the Council, which would be triggered by either the expiry of the permission, or if the project ceases to operate for a specific period. This would ensure that at the end of the proposal’s operational life the turbines would be decommissioned and principal elements removed; the site would be restored to its former use leaving little if any visible trace of the turbines; the foundations, new tracks and hardstandings would be covered over with topsoil and reseeded; the cables would be de-energised and left in place, and any cables marker signs removed; and the electrical substation building would be demolished to ground level with the foundation covered with topsoil and reseeded.

Having due regard to the above, as decommissioning could be controlled by condition it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in that regard in terms of Policy LDP 6: Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.

X. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT POLICY & ADVICE

The commitment to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a vital part of the response to climate change. Renewable energy generation will contribute to more secure and diverse energy supplies and support sustainable economic growth (SPP). The current target is for 100% of Scotland’s electricity and 11% of heat demand to be generated from renewable sourced by 2020 (2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland).

SPP provides the government’s policy position on planning matters having regard to national priorities with the intended outcomes identified reflecting the strategic visions set out in NPF 3. An underlying theme is that of sustainability, a principle which has been accorded enhanced priority in this iteration of SPP through the introduction of a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. Whilst the statutory primacy of the development plan in decision-making is not undermined by this policy pronouncement, the intention is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should prevail other than in circumstances where there are ‘adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP’ (Para 33).

Paragraph 29 of SPP sets out principles by which decisions should be guided. Those relevant to this case are securing economic benefit and good design, supporting delivery of energy infrastructure and climate change mitigation, and protecting the historic and natural environments and the amenity of existing developments. In terms of development in rural areas, SPP recognises the need to secure development which protects the character of the particular area and to support business whilst protecting environmental quality.

The delivery of a ‘Low Carbon Place’ is key ambition of SPP which aims to support the transformational change to a low carbon economy, focused on the reduction of greenhouse gases associated with fossil fuel electricity generation. It expresses support for renewable energy technologies, of which onshore wind remains the principal generator. As with the stance adopted in NPF 3, the support for wind farms as a component of an expanding renewables sector is not unqualified. There is recognition of the value and importance of the natural environment and an expectation that the planning system should facilitate positive change while maintaining and enhancing distinctive landscape character. Siting and design should take account of local landscape character and developers should seek to minimise adverse impacts through careful planning and design. Permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the natural environment.

Overall, as a renewable energy proposal with considerable generating capacity the proposal gains support in principle from SPP in terms of the contribution it would be able to make to the achievement of national renewable energy targets and the ambition to move to a low carbon economy. That said, sustainability has to be considered in the round and developments which may benefit the wider environment may come at a price which is too high in terms of their more localised consequences for the receiving environment. So support for wind farms as a means of expanding the proportion of electricity produced from renewable sources is qualified by the need to have regard to the extent of local environmental impacts and whether they amount to ‘adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in this SPP’ (Para 33).

The Council’s conclusion has been that the location and scale of the turbines proposed do not relate satisfactorily to the scale and character of the receiving landscape. These negative effects, in the Council’s view, outweigh the benefits of the proposal, including the contribution it could make to the local economy and to the achievement of national energy generation targets.

Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of SPP and the Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms.

Y. ENERGY POLICY, THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT’S RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS & ARGYLL & BUTE’S CONTRIBUTION ( Update required?)

In assessing the acceptability of wind farm proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the macro-environmental aspects of renewable energy (reduction in reliance on fossil fuels and contribution to reduction in global warming) as well as to the micro-environmental consequences of the proposal (in terms of its impact on its receiving environment).

Installed onshore wind energy generation capacity in Scotland in 2012 was 5.8GW and is expected to continue to grow in response to the Scottish Government target of meeting 100% of demand from renewable sources by 2020. As a consequence, planning authorities have to consider more frequently turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, where design elements and cumulative impacts need to be managed (Scottish Government’s Specific Advice Sheet on Onshore Wind Farms).

The national and international drive to combat climate change by reduced reliance on fossil fuels is accepted, but this cannot be an over-riding reason to accept development where acknowledged interests of importance are significantly prejudiced. This is particularly the case given that the renewables sector is pursuing a large number of prospective sites across Scotland, so there remains an element of choice as to the most appropriate locations. There is therefore not such an imperative to develop a high proportion of prospective sites as there might be if the sector had fewer sites under consideration, as in that scenario unsuccessful applications would clearly jeopardise the ability to meet renewable energy production targets. Secondly, the rate at which wind farm development have been approved in recent years is such that the Scottish Government’s ambitious target for renewables to satisfy the equivalent of 100% of gross annual consumption by 2020 is now well within reach. In a recent appeal decision in the Scottish Borders (Barrel Law PPA-140-2046 19.08.14) the Reporter concluded that having regard to both operational and approved developments yet to be implemented, of the 16GW required to meet the target there was in 2014 only an additional 2.7GW shortfall, with 7.2GW in the planning system; more than two and a half times that required to close the gap. Although further capacity beyond the target is desirable, and there remains an element of uncertainty as to exactly what will be on stream by 2020, the absence of a significant shortfall relative to the target, and continued proliferation of prospective schemes is such that there is no over-riding imperative to secure additional development where it gives rise to unacceptable local impacts. Accordingly, given that there is no lack of proposals being pursued, as time goes on the increasing prospect of the target being satisfied allows planning decision-makers to be more stringent in their consideration of the respective merits of proposals, given that refusal of a particular development will not necessarily contribute to the prospect of the government’s stated target being missed.

Whilst the 64.6 MW maximum capacity of the proposal would add to Argyll & Bute’s contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy commitments, it is not considered that the macro-environmental benefits of the proposal in terms of renewable generating capacity are such as to warrant the setting aside of the other Development Plan policy considerations identified above which have prompted the recommendation that objection be raised to this proposal.

DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 16th November 2016 ______

MASTERPLAN REPORT 16/02356/MPLAN

CASTLE TOWARD STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN AREA MAST 1/ 2 CASTLE TOWARD POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA PDA 2/42 ______

1. INTRODUCTION

The Castle Toward estate situated between Toward and Ardyne in south Cowal has recently been disposed of by the Council to private purchasers and their development aspirations have been set out in a masterplan submission which responds to Strategic Masterplan Area MAST 1/2 and Potential Development Area PDA 2/42 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (2015), which express the Council’s aspirations for the future development of the estate, and which seeks to ensure that development proposals are advanced in a co-ordinated manner.

The PDA is bounded by the C10 Glenstriven Road to the west and south, by Ardyne Farm and grazing fields to the north, and by grazing fields and woodland belonging to Toward Farm to the east. The PDA includes the main Castle Toward mansion house building and associated buildings in the central portion, the ruined Toward Castle in the south-eastern portion, former gate lodge and other residential dwellings in the south- western corner, and former greenhouses and associated estate buildings in the northern portion. The remainder of the PDA comprises areas of established mixed woodland, open space areas, moor and grazing fields.

Potential Development Area PDA 2/42: ‘Toward – Castle Toward’ advocates low density development of mixed uses including tourism, education, leisure, housing and business related developments.

The PDA has also been identified as a Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA) MAST 1/2 suitable for ‘mixed use development’ comprising tourism, business, leisure, housing and educational uses which requires a Masterplan approach when planning permission is not being sought for the full PDA area.

The majority of the PDA and SMA site (excluding the eastern part surrounding Toward Castle), also lies within a designated Area of Panoramic Quality. The entire PDA and SMA site lies within the Garden and Designed Landscape of Castle Toward.

Members will find elsewhere on the agenda a separate detailed application for planning permission (ref.16/00996/PP) to change the use of Castle Toward mansion house from a Class 8 (residential institution) to Class 9 (dwellinghouse), including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation and Sui Generis use as a commercial/leisure events venue. This application is also accompanied by a Listed Building Consent application (ref. 16/01405/LIB) for external and internal alterations to the mansion house only.

2. RECOMMENDATION

Whilst details of residential and commercial proposals within the PDA and SMA boundaries are intended to provide an indicative vision only of future development at this stage of the process, it is nevertheless considered that sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate an overall strategy for future development which will ensure that a phased development can be achieved without compromising the long term aims of the PDA and SMA. It is therefore recommended that the committee: 1) Endorses the masterplan as submitted;

2) Adopts it as a material consideration in the determination of applications currently under consideration and future development proposals;

3) Agrees that the masterplan should be updated as necessary in the event that developments are approved at the site in conformity with the masterplan which prove to have implications for the delivery of development within the remainder of the site;

subject to prior consideration by means of a discretionary local hearing in view of the number of representations received raising material issues.

3. BACKGROUND

PDA 2/42 and MAST 1/2 are located at the southern tip of the Ardyne Point / Toward Point peninsula. Both Potential Development Area (PDA) and Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA) boundaries are identical and are bounded by the C10 Glenstriven Road with fields and former oil rig fabrication yard at Ardyne Point to the west, sloping farmland and woodland to the north, farmland and woodland to the east and the C10 Glenstriven Road, Toward Quay and Firth of Clyde to the south.

The land within the PDA 2/42 (and MAST 1/2) boundary comprises Castle Toward, a Category B Listed Building, which was last in use as an educational outdoor centre and associated estate buildings, in addition to some residential dwellinghouses in the south-west portion adjacent to a listed Gate House building. The ruined Toward Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, is situated in the south-eastern portion of the PDA close to a former vehicular access from the C10 road. The current access to Castle Toward is from the C10 to the west, adjacent to the Toward Memorial Hall and car parking area at Toward Bay. The remainder of the PDA comprises grazing fields, areas of established mature mixed woodland and open space areas associated with the Garden and Designed Landscape of Castle Toward. To the north, west and east of the PDA, the landscape is characterised by open grassland and cultivated farmland, areas of woodland and scattered rural residential dwellings.

Castle Toward estate description

The designed landscape at Castle Toward extends northwards up Toward Hill to include the Chinese Lakes (reservoirs to supply the estate which were made into an attractive landscape feature) and Ardyne Farm to the north-west. The C10 Glenstriven Road forms the southern and western boundaries, and to the east, the boundary takes in old estate parkland and is bounded by a commercial coniferous plantation on what was probably former policy woodland. A belt of old policy woodland is included in the designed landscape, which stretches east of the old ruins of Toward Castle. The principal features of the designed landscape, except for the Chinese lakes are contained within the current estate boundary comprising approximately 150ha (370 acres).

History

Castle Toward is the most significant and imposing feature within the estate, by virtue of its elevated and commanding location affording views out over the sea, and its architectural flamboyance. It is a 19th century country house (mansion by Hamilton 1821 with 20th century enlargement and now Grade B listed) which replaced a late medieval castle, which was home of the Clan Lamont. It was owned and extended by Major Andrew Coats, of the Coats family of Paisley, and Italian plasterwork was installed in the public rooms in 1920. The entire building was restored and enlarged over the course of the 1920s by the architect Francis William Deas, who also laid out most of the current landscaping. In the Second World War it served as HMS Brontosaurus, and after the war it was sold to Glasgow Corporation and used as an outdoor education facility until closure in 2009. It was occupied latterly by Actual Reality Learning and Leadership Co as an Education Centre for music and art and an Outward Bound centre, prior to being disposed of by Argyll and Bute Council in 2016.

The mansion stands in around 150ha of grounds which incorporate some areas of ancient woodland and areas of garden design by Edward La Trobe Bateman carried out in the 1880’s. The grounds incorporate the ruins of the original Toward Castle, Chinese ponds, wooded areas, access to the shore, and views over the Firth of Clyde. Within the grounds, there are various curtilage structures (West Lodge, East and North Walled Gardens, gardener’s workshop, glasshouses and other garden structures) which are covered by the grade B listing of the mansion house.

The original Toward Castle, also known as Castle Lamont, (Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade B listed) dates from the 15th century, and was owned by the Clan Lamont until 1809. The castle was extended in the 17th century, but was abandoned after an attack by the Clan Campbell in 1646. The ruins lie around 500 metres south-east of the Castle Toward mansion house.

Castle Toward represents an important example of a 19th century designed landscape set at a focal point on the Firth of Clyde and funded by mercantile success. It is of significance due to its castellated mansion, its designed landscape incorporating pre-park woodland, and the fact that it incorporates earlier castle ruins. This is recognised in the various designations protecting its historic environment. As an estate, it has suffered latterly from wartime requisitioning, the demolition of some curtilage structures and the abandonment of others, the loss of important trees, garden features and horticultural interest, the introduction of inappropriate conifer plantation, and the general lack of maintenance inherent in public ownership. However, the parkland/woodland setting of the site and the built features which remain still afford the potential for there to be sensitive restoration of the estate underpinned by enabling development, although care is required to ensure that the nature and scale of such development does not undermine the very qualities which give rise to the landscape qualities and the and historic importance of this site.

4. CONSULTATIONS

Council’s Flood Risk Engineer (response dated 2nd September 2016): No objections subject to conditions and advisory notes. Comments regarding topographic survey, finished floor levels and surface water drainage.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer (response dated 6th September 2016): Comments regarding invasive non-native species and request for eradication and site restoration programme. Masterplan lacks an Ecological Report. Request for Arboriculture Survey.

Council’s Access Officer (responses dated 12th September and 2nd November 2016) Original request for access path information. Updated response comments that the proposed Masterplan will not restrict the use of the Core Path and that the Council has not recognised either of the claimed Public Rights of Way. Comments regarding future mitigation of potential loss of access or rights of way. Advisory comments.

Council’s Public Protection Service (response dated 23rd September 2016): Comments regarding foul drainage, water supply, contaminated land, construction activities and operating hours, noise, asbestos management and food registration.

Council’s Roads Engineers (response dated 7th October 2016): No objections subject to conditions regarding Traffic Impact Assessment, reduced speed limit on C10, visibility splays, access design and car parking for various uses and requirements for Construction Consent, Road Bond and Road Opening Permit.

Historic Environment Scotland (response dated 28th September 2016): No objection in principle. Proposals will ensure the repair and long term management of this nationally important heritage asset. Comments in Annex regarding assessment of impact. No objections. Proposals do not raise issues of national significance in respect of the nearby Castle Toward Designed Landscape.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (response dated 6th October 2016): Comments regarding Toward Castle, a scheduled monument, listed buildings and designed landscape. Recommend suspensive condition for a requirement to carry out archaeological investigations.

Scottish Natural Heritage - (response dated 5th September 2016): No comments to make as below consultation threshold.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (response dated 28th September 2016): SEPA comment that insufficient information available to offer detailed comments on. Further information required in respect of Site Drainage Report and Flood Risk Assessment (or the provision of equivalent information). Advisory comments on regulatory requirements.

Scottish Rights of Way Society (response dated 12th October 2016): Objection on the basis that right of way SA181 and other popular recreational routes within the application site boundary may become lost to the general public due to access restrictions.

Sportscotland (response dated 21st October 2016): Comments regarding informal playing field area south of the mansion house.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (expiry date 21st September 2016): No response.

Scottish Water (expiry date 21st September 2016): No response.

South Cowal Community Council (e-mail dated 25th September 2016): Objections based on Right of Way, proposed housing in an area prone to flooding, poor access for proposed housing, important and rare species of wildlife within the estate, increase in road traffic, details of proposed deer farm.

Isle of Bute Community Council (expiry date 21st September 2016): No response.

5. PUBLICITY

The Masterplan has been advertised in the Dunoon Observer - publication date 9th September 2016, expiry date 7th October 2016.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

The masterplan has attracted 20 objections, 25 expressions of support, and 1 representation offering comment as follows. Names and addresses are listed in Appendix A and matters raised are summarised below:

Objections a) Public Access

 Ramblers Scotland object on the basis that no access plan was submitted as part of the application package. A clear access plan would allay concerns over potential loss of the claimed right of way and other informal access taken in the grounds which are well-used by the local community.

Comment: A Supplementary Access Plan (in conjunction with plan 1544_L (MP) 005 dated September 2016 has been submitted in support of the masterplan proposals (refer below). The applicant fully intends to maintain access via the core path in the western part of the estate. The Core Path C208(c ) is confirmed by the Council as the only recognised public right of way. The applicants have commented that by summer 2017 they intend to provide an additional footpath from the Chinese Lakes down the eastern side of the estate. This may require formal planning permission to extend any existing tracks. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed a private area immediately surrounding the mansion house. This area is identified on plan 1544 L (MP)003. This area encompasses the formal lawn areas to the front of the house which the applicants propose to develop into a formal garden. There will be public access for a small charge to these gardens on certain days depending on events. This aspect of the works will require formal planning permission where matters such as impact on the Garden and Designed Landscape and any landscaping and boundary treatments will be taken into consideration.

 Masterplan proposals will prevent public access. There is a recognised right of way at the Estate which has not been recognised in the plan.

 The plan has a massive impact on public access and effectively blocks the public usage that has been taking place over decades. The plan ignores the Public Right of Way recorded on the Catalogue of Rights of Way (CROW).

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan comments that reference should be made to the existing Master Plan submission which clearly identifies the area of the estate that would become accessible with the granting of a change of use consent under the Land Reform Scotland Act - Drawing 1544_L (MP) 003 refers. The applicants confirm that there is no intention to deliver a formal “path network”. There will be a programme of improvements undertaken throughout the estate and this will include clearing blocked woodland walks etc. The main focus in the first instance will be the creation of an access on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen which will link to the existing path network on adjoining land leading to the Chinese Lakes. The intention is to complete this as part of the first phase of works, and this will have a requirement for major machinery to access the area (with some of the fallen trees exceeding twenty five tonnes in weight). This machinery will be operating on site as part of the construction improvements for phase 1, so there is likely to be a short period of time when this machinery will be working in both locations at the same time. During this time there will be no access in the vicinity of the mansion house and in the vicinity of the Himalayan Glen, simply from a health and safety perspective. The applicants are currently tendering for the construction works, and once the successful contractor is appointed they will have a clearer idea of the programming of the works. Therefore, the proposed improved path to the east of the Himalayan Glen will link with the existing core path / right of way and will provide access round the estate back to the public road to the south.

 Little or no off-road parking at the eastern side of the estate to access Toward Castle.

Comment: The applicants confirm that there is no intention to provide car parking for the general public within the estate grounds. They comment that there will of course be adequate car parking provided within the estate for those on business within the estate, such as for events and weddings, and for the development areas such as the residential dwellings, holiday lodges, market garden, the retail café area redevelopment of the coach house etc. The applicants comment that there is public car parking immediately adjacent to the Memorial Hall at the Western entrance and to the public car park provided by the Forestry Commission just to the north of the estate and consider that these offer adequate car parking for the public using the Core Path or for those taking access to the estate under the Land Reform Scotland Act.

 Proposed gates, fencing and access charges all serve to restrict access.

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan comments that the demarcation line has been identified by reference to historical records and to existing structures and fencing on the ground. Previously this fence has been predominantly a traditional iron estate fence, and in other locations this comprises a now dilapidated deer fence. Whilst it is the intention to restore/replace elements of the iron fence, at other locations the applicants require to extend the deer fencing. However, due to the current overgrown nature of the grounds it is currently extremely difficult to identify the full extent of each type of existing fencing. As a general principle however the existing fence running north-south on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen will be restored as a deer fence, as will the section to the south which runs east–west and which leads up the western driveway. To the north the existing livestock fences around the paddocks will be repaired. Gates are proposed at the junctions with the fence lines and the new restored eastern driveway and with the existing western driveway. Where the fence on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen reaches the top boundary of the estate, an access will be afforded across the burn by way of pedestrian bridge (which the applicants understand to still exist but is currently inaccessible) within the estate so as to afford connectivity to the current central path leading to the Lakes.

 No details on charging for public access.

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan 1544_L (MP) 003 refers as the area is wholly contained within the Private boundary. The applicants comment that the principle is very similar to that currently being adopted at Castle Gordon in Moray where the owners are currently undertaking a full renovation of the walled gardens, and a modest charge is made for access by visitors. The area potentially affected shall take in the walled gardens, the parterre gardens and the Japanese fountain gardens as well as the Himalayan Glen, (famous for its plant specimens) and the bluebell woods at the mouth of the bridge. These areas formed the core of the designated Designed Landscape. The plan is that with initial investment the core of these areas can be developed and the financial contribution which will come from visitors to the formal gardens shall support various upkeep requirements, for example additional staff wages, so as to permit the grounds to be opened to the public on Sundays/Public Holidays etc. on a regular basis.

 There would no longer be any convenient route between the ruined castle and the Chinese Lakes. The path from the ruin in drawing 1544)_L(MP)001 and marked as “public access promoted” is currently impassable and peters out eventually after leaving the estate boundary on the wrong side of the burn from the well-used Right of Way that leads to the Lakes.

Comment: The applicants comment that during the works, access to the Chinese Lakes will always remain available via the Core Path through the estate. None of the proposals will impact on the existing Core Path.

To facilitate access to the Chinese Lakes area, works will be undertaken at an early stage to clear the large windblown trees etc. that have fallen in the area of the Himalayan Glen, so that general access can be gained to the current Forestry Commission paths leading from the estate to the Chinese Lakes area. The applicants propose that an access is available up the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen, and understand that pedestrian footbridges existed towards the top of this glen within the current estate boundary, which could be used to gain access to the central path leading to the Lakes. The applicants cannot currently gain access to this area due to extensive overgrowth and fallen trees that are of a substantial nature, to ascertain the condition of the bridge(s) but propose to assess their condition at an early stage and will if necessary provide a new pedestrian bridge close to the northern boundary of the estate for improved connectivity.

The applicants comment that generally the paths that exist at present are of a woodland nature, it is not our intention to substitute these with tarmacadam or the like, rather that the paths will give informal access to various parts of the estate. Some of the paths pass through damp areas and a programme of land drainage is envisaged in future years. Funding in the first instance will however be directed at restoration of the listed buildings so work on the paths will be limited to clearance work associated with fallen timber and overgrown bushes/scrub etc. b) Masterplan

 The proposed masterplan differs greatly from what was originally said in council press releases. The communities were promised a spa hotel with a restaurant open to non- residents with around 150 full time jobs created. What is now proposed is little more than private accommodation with some ancillary luxury function capability.

Comment: Refer to report below. However, past expectations or understandings do not amount to a material planning consideration. c) Proposed Housing

 The plan includes new housing. No need for further housing within the area. Housing not classed as affordable. Housing remote from amenities.

Comment: There is housing proposed. However, it is understood that some of this will be staff accommodation. The Masterplan is indicative therefore the final details of the housing will need to be assessed through the submission of further planning applications. Further comment is provided below. d) Traffic

 Increased traffic as a result of the development and new housing;

 Stretch of road between Dunoon and Castle Toward has many dangerous spots and requires improvement to accommodate the proposed development;

 Road between Toward Memorial Hall and East Gate is dangerous;

 No car parking proposed at east gate.

Comment: The Council’s roads engineers do not object in terms of road safety or parking capacity but offer advice on access, parking and turning requirements for future development. Future planning applications will require to have a transport management plan but a Masterplan is not the appropriate submission to deal with this requirement. e) Business

 Adverse impacts on existing local businesses. Stated aim of the Masterplan is to compete directly with nearby Knockdow Estate;

 Development of holiday lodges would put the estate in competition with Hunters Quay Holiday Village.

Comment: The proposals are considered to be consistent with the potential land uses for the PDA and SMA. Matters of business competition are not a material planning consideration.

f) Habitats and Species

 The estate is home to red squirrels, pine martens, bats and other important species.

Comment: Noted and acknowledged that any development works must be fully assessed for impacts on habitats and species. Works that do not require planning permission such as woodland clearance, path improvements etc. will still require authorisation from SNH should there be the prospect of disturbing protected species. Refer to report below. g) Other Matters

 The helicopter landing pad is not appropriate in this setting.

Comment: This aspect would require full consideration in any detailed application for planning permission.

 Council appear keen to offload Castle Toward to a developer solely to generate money and in doing so are completely at odds with the opinions and aspirations of the local community;

 Sad that the Council rejected the community buy-out of Castle Toward;

 The Council should refer all planning matters at Castle Toward to Scottish Minsters as it has a vested interest in the sale.

Comment: These are not considered to be relevant planning considerations in an assessment of this masterplan proposal. It should be noted that as of 21st October 2016 the Council are no longer the owners of the estate as ownership has passed to the applicants since the masterplan was submitted.

 Proposed deer farm – no details on management or fencing.

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan comments that livestock has been retained on the estate for in excess of twenty years during the ownership of Argyll and Bute Council, and evidence records that much livestock was previously kept on the estate prior to the council’s ownership. Attention is drawn to the Ha-ha which was constructed on the front lawns to allow livestock to freely roam the estate in the past. Although now dilapidated, the masterplan proposals include the restoration of the Ha‐ha. This was historically used to keep livestock from the more formal lawn / garden area closer to the house.

More recently whilst livestock has been retained during the Council’s ownership, members of the public are required to act responsibly under the terms of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and this will continue to be the case. It is intended that there will be a combination of horses and deer kept within the estate, with horse grazing areas retained in the current paddock areas and deer formally introduced to the eastern parkland adjacent to the eastern driveway.

Expression of Support

The reasons for expressing support are summarised below:

 Most positive and productive uses which will still allow public access to the estate;

 Happy to see a new pathway to the Chinese Lakes;

 The castle is falling further and further into disrepair as well as costing huge amounts of money to the taxpayer;

 Preferred bidders have been very clear that Castle Toward will have adequate access and very open with their plans for the estate at the meeting held in Innellan Village Hall;

 A fantastic project that will hugely benefit the surrounding community both by creating jobs and bringing tourists in;  Access plan allows the public to enjoy the estate;

 New gardens could attract tourists and support other businesses;

 The proposed deer farm is a positive initiative which will produce a product from the estate itself;

 The plan provides employment and allows continuous use of the estate;

 The plan will provide additional new housing in the area;

 Great potential for the estate to flourish similar to the Portavadie example;

 The Masterplan would enhance the whole area both aesthetically and economically.

Representation

One letter of representation has been received from Gary Brown, Manager Student Tours Scotland (emails dated 30th September and 3rd October 2016). An initial objection was based on no suitable existing access from the main road to the ruined castle but he has withdrawn this objection to suggest improved pedestrian links to the castle along with enhanced visitor and historical information on the castle would be beneficial.

4. ASSESSMENT

a) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the masterplan

Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan (26th March 2015)

LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 Development within the Development Management Zones (the application site is located within PDA 2/42 and MAST 1/2); LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 4 Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal Zone; LDP 5 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy; LDP 8 Supporting the Strength of Our Communities; LDP 9 Development Setting, Layout and Design; LDP 10 Maximising our Resources and Reducing Our Consumption; LDP 11 Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure.

Argyll and Bute Supplementary Guidance (March 2016)

SG LDP ENV 1 Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 6 Development Impact on Trees / Woodland; SG LDP ENV13 Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV14 Landscape; SG LDP ENV15 Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; SG LDP ENV 16(a) Development Impact on Listed Buildings; SG LDP ENV 19 Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; SG LDP ENV 20 Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance; SG LDP BUS2 Business and Industry Proposals in the Countryside Development Management Zones; SG LDP RET4 Retail Development within Countryside Development Management Zones; SG LDP TOUR1 Tourist Facilities and Accommodation; SG LDP HOU1 General Housing Development including Affordable Housing Provision; SG LDP SERV 1 Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) Systems; SG LDP SERV 3 Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA); SG LDP SERV 6 Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation; SG LDP SERV 7 Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development; SG LDP TRAN1 Access to the Outdoors; SG LDP TRAN2 Development and Public Transport Accessibility; SG LDP TRAN3 Special Needs Access Provision; SG LDP TRAN 4 New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes; SG LDP TRAN 6 Vehicle Parking Provision SG2 Sustainable Siting and Design Principles; b) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

National Planning Framework 3 (NPF 3) (June 2014); Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (June 2014); Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2014; Applicant’s Supporting Information; Planning history; Views of statutory and other consultees; Legitimate public concern expressed on ‘material’ planning issues. c) Assessment against the Development Plan

The masterplan site and its wider surroundings fall within an area designated as Countryside Zone and rural opportunity area. Such a designation would normally be restrictive in terms of the scale of development which would be accepted, however, given its condition as a vacant major Category Grade B Listed building and large unmanaged estate grounds within a Garden and Designed Landscape, the site has been identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP) as a Potential Development Area (PDA) and Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA). The latter designation identifies large scale areas which are of strategic economic importance to Argyll and Bute.

PDA 2/42 and SMA MAST 1/2 both have the same boundary and are identified as providing opportunities for ‘mixed use’ development including tourism, business, leisure, housing and educational related development.

Where PDAs and SMAs have been designated in the countryside, the normally applicable constraints associated with the underlying ‘Development Control Zones’ are removed. PDA 2/42 therefore establishes a general presumption in favour of mixed use development in terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute LDP, subject to a comprehensive master planning approach being adopted to satisfy the requirements of LDP MAST 1/2. d) Proposed Masterplan Zoning

A ‘Restoration and Development Masterplan for Castle Toward Estate’ dated 22nd August 2016 has been submitted which defines the key built and environmental considerations taken into account during the Masterplanning process, including impact on other local businesses, phasing, new uses for old buildings, wider designed landscape, landscape features, visual amenity, cultural heritage, introduction of livestock, public access and public events, holiday accommodation and small-scale residential development.

Vision

The applicants’ vision for the Castle Toward Estate is “to create an economic and cultural asset for the Cowal peninsula that provides local employment opportunities by addressing the neglect of the 20th century and restoring the Estate’s buildings, structures and designed landscape to their former glory and creating new financially sustainable beneficial long-term uses for each”.

The development vision includes:

 The restoration of Castle Toward and other significant buildings around the estate and their conversion to beneficial new long-term uses;

 The restoration of the designed landscape including the re-opening of the east drive and the enhancement of the setting of Toward Castle;

 Development of commercial and revenue generating opportunities around the estate;

 Promotion of managed public access.

Phasing

The applicants have provided an indicative five year plan for the development of the estate. The delivery of the Masterplan will be controlled through the submission of various applications for planning permission. The indicative delivery timetable of the proposals is outlined below. Please note that this is subject to change and is dependent on market forces.

Should the current applications be permitted, the applicants intend to undertake works to the house and grounds immediately as per the current associated applications for planning permission and listed building consent. This work is anticipated to allow for the mansion house to be available for events during 2017. Further works on the house will continue through to 2018 including the installation of the basement spa facilities. These works are all covered by the current applications for planning permission and listed building consent.

The applicants intend to create a formal designed garden area to the front of Castle Toward. This will generally be a private garden but there will be days when it will be open to members of the public for a small fee. This is common to large estate houses across Scotland. This will involve the reinstatement of the ha-ha and the planting of formal areas. An application for this is expected early in 2017.

This initial phase will include the path connections adjacent to the Himalayan Glen so that public access can benefit at an early stage and most of these areas will be complete by summer 2017. The applicant has advised that they have issued tender requirements to contractors for this work. The woodland improvements will be an ongoing element throughout the lifespan of the estate. Although these elements do not require the benefit of planning permission the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to provide access for the public. The extent of access available to the public is denoted on plan 1544_L(MP)003. Should the works not be undertaken then the planning authority can seek to attach planning conditions to subsequent applications to ensure its installation, specifically when the applicant submits an application for the re-opening of the eastern driveway which is expected early 2017.

A further planning application will be required for the restoration of the eastern driveway. It is anticipated that this will be submitted early in 2017 especially considering the applicant’s desire to open the house for public events in the summer 2017. Whilst Castle Toward and the driveway are being restored, much needed maintenance and land management of the grounds will be carried out including clearing gullies and dead trees as well as re-establishing the old Ha-ha, Chinese Fountain Garden, northern garden as well as the path garden on the eastern side. These are also the areas most needed for events which it is hoped will take place in and around Castle Toward and grounds. The proposed fishing lake is scheduled for completion for late 2017/early 2018. With this in mind a planning application will need to be submitted in the first half of 2017 to allow sufficient time for the determination of a submission prior to the commencement of works.

The re-opening of the east drive is scheduled for 2017 and this will allow for improved public access to Toward Castle scheduled ancient monument. Clan Lamont have been offered the lease of Toward Castle to allow them to have substantially larger and more frequent events at their family seat which in turn should encourage more tourism within the area. New directional signage as well as educational and interpretation boards will also be installed making the ancient castle more accessible and visible to visitors. It is understood that this element of the proposals will be up to Clan Lamont to progress so the applicant has no control over the likely submission of any necessary planning applications.

Detailed applications are intended to be submitted in early 2017 for the reinstatement of the east drive lodges and the first of the dwelling houses, together with further information for the redevelopment of the west gatehouse complex commercial elements.

Beyond 2017, the applicant will be submitting further applications for those elements not covered above such as the deer farm and the holiday lodges but these will be market driven. Indicatively it is anticipated that these applications could be submitted in 2018 but their development could be further into the future.

From the information above it can be demonstrated that the vast majority of planning applications that will control the delivery of the Masterplan will be submitted in the early part of 2017. Works will continue on into 2018 with further applications for the deer farm and the holiday lodges in 2018.

Whist it should be noted that the above timetable is indicative and market dependant, it is encouraging to see initial investment being directed to the mansion house and other existing assets on the site, with new development being scheduled later in the programme. This is the converse of the more usual scenario where historic environment assets are involved, where there is often pressure for enabling development to precede investment in historic buildings, so as to provide an initial capital injection and to help redress any conservation deficit in funding restoration works. To that extent a programme focussed initially on the existing historic environment assets is to be welcomed.

Proposed uses

Site assessments as part of the master planning process have identified priority and later phase developments within the PDA / SMA boundary as outlined below. a) Main house: The applicants have commented that the prospect of turning Castle Toward into a hotel was ruled out due to issues of competition with other existing hotel businesses in East Cowal. It is therefore proposed to convert Castle Toward mansion house into a dwellinghouse (Class 8) including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation and also including sui generis use as a commercial / leisure events venue. Such events could include weddings, corporate group bookings, photo and film shoots. The applicants consider that this concept is similar to other large estates with stately homes looking for new sustainable uses, and there examples of this approach across Argyll. The initial phase of the conversion of Castle Toward mansion house is currently being promoted under an application for planning permission (ref. 16/00996/PP) and an accompanying application for Listed Building Consent (ref.16/01405/LIB). b) Secret Garden: It is intended to create an events space within the South Walled Garden for visitors and community events. The Loggia will be reinstated and the ruined Old Auchavoulin House redeveloped as a chapel for wedding ceremonies as an extension to any marquee erected within the walled garden. The existing pond feature will be restored as the Japanese Water Garden. c) Livestock: Discussions about the husbandry of the Estate are ongoing and advice is being taken regarding the quality and potential of the estate. A small-scale deer farm is envisioned where it is intended to incorporate a small abattoir as well as other livestock which will allow food to be produced with its own label from the estate. d) Wider Designed Landscape: The wooded area of the estate will be upgraded and land managed to identify and protect specimen trees. An arborist has carried out an initial inspection and a detailed tree survey will follow. Such works do not require the benefit of planning permission. e) Public Events: It is intended to have local and public events for music, sport and art throughout the year. Making Castle Toward a preferred venue for both events and displays is one of the key objectives of the masterplan. f) Future Public Access: The applicants intend to increase public access in the future as it is hoped to restore the designed landscape, as well as introducing planting concepts which represent today’s horticultural designs. A small charge will be made for access to this area of the mansion house grounds which will help with the upkeep and renovation of the garden. Some areas may need to be closed off from general access at times when events are being held. g) Holiday Cottages: There are a number of dwellings around the estate and it is intended to convert some into holiday lets encouraging weekly visitors into the area. These could include two existing vacant dwellinghouses in the north-eastern corner, the ruined Heather Cottage and the Coach House but proposals have not been specifically identified at this stage.

Additional holiday accommodation will also be created in the northern most part of the estate if a viable market can be identified. The masterplan indicates a total of 18 holiday units located on the sloping field at the northern end of the estate. h) The Coach House: is located the south-western corner of the estate adjacent to Toward Sailing Club. The applicants consider that this is ideally placed to be a commercial development showcasing local produce. The development would also include a café with a gift shop to entice visitors and involve the restoration of four existing residential units. The delivery of this will be dependent upon demand and certainly undertaken after the works to the mansion house.

i) New Dwellinghouses: It is intended to develop small-scale housing around the estate. The scope of such proposals will be limited to the west and south boundaries and the intention is to provide a mix of restoration of new flats within the Coach House (4 units), estate style terraced cottages along the west boundary (14 units in four terraced blocks) and larger detached housing to the south boundary (8 detached dwellinghouses with a single access from the C10 at the western end, 4 detached dwellinghouses with a single access from the C10 at the eastern end, and possible pair of new gatehouses and the reinstated eastern driveway entrance). The proposed developments will target a mixed housing market and tenures, with some of the new homes being aimed at the affordable market.

Conclusion

The applicants consider that the success of the Castle Toward Estate Development relies ultimately on it being both community orientated and financially self-sustainable through the various ventures outlined within the masterplan. They consider that the proposals outlined in this masterplan, which may be subject to change as opportunities arise, describe how such a success can be achieved. In terms of the proposed uses for the PDA and SMA, these are considered to be consistent with the range of uses prescribed in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. All aspects of the masterplan proposals will require separate pre-application discussions and formal applications for planning permission, and listed building consent as necessary. The proposed masterplan approach is considered to be generally acceptable in principle in terms of the various development components.

First phase proposals for the mansion house are currently being addressed by the accompanying planning permission and listed building consent applications. However, future proposals for the proposed Parterre Garden on the front lawns will require further consultation with Historic Environment Scotland in terms of the impact on the Garden and Designed Landscape designation. As the mansion house would not benefit from domestic ‘permitted development’ rights, the formalised gardens and boundary treatments would require to be the subject of planning permission whilst any ground engineering works to the ha-ha would require formal permission. The suggested helipad will also require further discussion as to its suitability in the proposed location on the lawn. Overall woodland management is also to be welcomed given the current condition of trees and drainage within the estate, and will be managed by way of an overall Woodland Management Plan. Obligations to undertake works benefitting the estate but not requiring planning permission (such as access improvements or woodland management) could be achieved by planning conditions attached to permissions for separate development proposals as they come forward.

The most significant element of new development would be the proposed housing development alongside the C10 Glenstriven Road. This will require further input in terms of access, density, siting, design, materials and landscaping to ensure that the southern fringe of the designed landscape is not eroded inappropriately and to ensure that unacceptable ribbon development is created in this rural area. Nonetheless, the mixed quality of the trees and other vegetation around the perimeter of the estate afford an opportunity to assimilate sensitively sited development within a woodland context without undermining the landscape quality or the historic importance of the estate. Re-use of the coach house building is to be welcomed however the mix of residential and commercial uses in this area all served by a single vehicular access will require some investigation and consultation with Roads. Reinstatement and renovation or redevelopment of scattered former residential buildings within the estate is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to access and design issues being resolved. Holiday cottages in the northern portion of the estate would also be acceptable in principle, subject to siting, design, access and landscaping issues being resolved in order to successfully integrate these buildings on the higher and more prominent part of the estate.

The proposals to introduce commercial ventures within the estate are to be welcomed to create a mixed development with employment, tourist, educational and leisure opportunities being created, which would satisfy the aspirations of the PDA designation. All commercial proposals will of course be subject to further discussion regarding land use, siting, design, access and car parking. e) Public Access

The existing Core Path network begins at Toward Memorial Hall and enters Castle Toward estate from the existing western vehicular entrance. The Core Path C208(c) then follows the entrance to Castle Toward just beyond the Nissen Huts at the rear, where the path strikes left and northwards towards the junction to Ardyne Farm to the north. The Core Path follows the track up to and past Strathclyde Cottage where it then splits north-west to the Ardyne Car Park and west around the Chinese Lakes where it splits again with a western and eastern route around Corlarach Forest. A Supplementary Access Plan (in conjunction with plan 1544_L (MP) 005 dated September 2016) has been submitted in support of the masterplan proposals. The applicants comment that the proposals seek to ensure continued access to the existing Core Path network that runs through the western boundary of the estate, and to embrace the requirements of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act by enhancing public access to the majority of the estate. The applicant has agreed with the council a private area within the immediate grounds of the mansion house that covers the lawned areas to the front. These will be turned into a formal garden area with paid entrance for the public on days when there are no events on at the house. This will protect and enhance the setting of the historic mansion house whilst defining a private area, within which the important gardens and buildings can be restored and operated on a successful and sustainable basis. This area is identified on plan 1544 L(MP)003.

The applicants comment that the mansion house has operated as a residential school for the past sixty years, but the building has been unoccupied (excepting security staff) for three years. In that time the public have latterly become accustomed to relatively free access to the grounds of the estate. Such access has often included making use of the car park at the side of the mansion house, adjacent to the main entrance. In the past the applicants understand that informal access has sometimes been taken to the grounds by members of the public. However, understandably public access was not encouraged whilst the site was in operation as a residential school.

Recently attempts have been made by some members of the public to secure a further Right of Way, through the estate leading from the former eastern driveway (currently abandoned) to the Chinese Lakes, passing close to the mansion house entrance (approximately thirty metres away) and cutting between the mansion house and the listed walled flower garden and loggia etc. Scotways have currently registered the alleged route as a “claimed” right of way, but this has no legal basis.

Whilst the Council is satisfied that there are no formal rights of way passing through the estate, excepting the core path on the western boundary (a position confirmed by the Council’s Access Officer following legal advice having been taken), the Land Reform Scotland Act affords access to members of the public on a general basis and the applicants comment that they are keen to support this. Such rights nonetheless afford an element of privacy around occupied buildings and there would be opportunity to close off areas temporarily in order to facilitate functions making use of outdoor areas adjacent to the buildings. Consistent with the aims of the Masterplan to encourage public access, the applicant has specified that they intend to provide an additional path on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen which would effectively replace the path that is also claimed to be a right of way. This would provide a means of pedestrian access round the estate. In providing such a route the applicants would therefore be providing a form of planning gain in terms of the Local Development Plan, by introducing a new formal access route around the eastern side of the estate to supplement the existing Core Path to the west. f) Roads and Transportation Matters

The Area Roads Engineer has comment that Castle Toward is currently accessed from C10 Glenstriven Road within a national speed limit restriction with one vehicular access to the west of the site in use.

The proposal is to re-establish and upgrade old disused vehicular accesses serving the estate in addition to the one currently being used. A new access would be required to serve the proposed housing development of 8 No. properties to east of the Smiddy. It is recommended that for future development involving additional traffic generation that a Transport Assessment should be required. As the existing 40mph speed restriction terminates approximately 500 metres to the east and given the potential increase in vehicle movements associated with these proposals, consideration should be given to extending the 40mph restriction past the existing vehicular access to the west. This in turn would decrease the minimum sightlines required. Based on current speed restriction of 60mph sightlines would require to be 136m x 2.4m compared with 75m x 2.4m based on 40mph restriction.

Further comments provided by the Roads Engineers are summarised below:

 Eastern Access Loop: No walls fences or hedges to be greater in height than 1 metre above the road level. Visibility splays for both of these vehicular access' to be maintained. The eastern sightline of the eastern loop will require a Section 75 Agreement from the adjoining land owner for 136 x 2.4m (60mph);  Access at Single Lodge ruins: The visibility splays will extend across the carriageway onto the land on the south side; this will also require a Section 75 Agreement with land owner for 136 x 2.4 m. (60mph);  New development to east of the Smiddy. No walls fences or hedges to be greater in height than 1 metre above the road level within the visibility splays. (136 x 2.4 m). Upgrade of west vehicular access. No walls fences or hedges to be greater in height than 1 metre above the road level within the visibility splays. (136 x 2.4 m);  All accesses and roads to be designed and constructed as per Argyll and Bute Council’s Development Guidelines;  The new housing development at Single Lodge will require Road Construction Consent and Road Bond due to more than 5no. dwellings being served from this point;  The road infrastructure will require being to adoptable standards;  The access serving the 8no. proposed dwellings to east of the Smiddy will also require adoption with Road Construction Consent and Road Bond;  The proposed housing development of 7no. dwellings to north of west access may be classed as Housing Court and as such will not be adopted by Local Roads Authority. However the proposed 7no. dwellings to south of west access with retail/commercial units with 4no. refurbished dwellings will require the adopted road network to extend to these 7no. dwellings;  Parking levels for residential, leisure and commercial developments to be to current Development Guidelines with adequate provision of Disabled Parking Bays.  A Road Opening Permit will be required for all Works being carried out on or adjacent to the road corridor, including verges. If a Traffic Regulation Order is raised to reduce the speed on the C10 Glenstriven Road to 40mph the developer will be responsible for all costs including the erection of signage;  The developer will also be responsible for the erection of all necessary street name plates for developments.

The applicants have confirmed that the visibility splays recommended above are all on land within their control and should not therefore become an issue for developments served from the C10 Glenstriven Road. All future development proposals will however require pre-application discussions to enable an acceptable design and access solution to be established at an early stage. g) Archaeology

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) comment that the general area and landscape is archaeologically sensitive based on known records for prehistoric and medieval activity. As such, there is a good chance of unrecorded buried remains turning up in modern development. For this reason, it is likely that extensive survey work would be required as a first stage to any firm proposals in order to prospect for unrecorded finds and features. Subsequent mitigation would have to be tailored to specific development proposals such as evaluation for large areas of proposed ground disturbance or watching briefs during more minor works. It is recommended that a suspensive condition be attached to any planning permissions for future development s requiring a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation. It is advised that the developer must use a professional archaeological contractor to carry out required investigations.

h) Employment

SPP (2014) advises that the planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term. In terms of employment generation, the applicants have confirmed that exact numbers are conditional on a variety of elements, but anticipate that around 77 full time equivalent roles will be created in the construction phase. It will be the applicant’s policy to source all labour, goods and material locally wherever possible and they have already established trading terms with a number of key local suppliers. It is also anticipated that around 91 full time equivalent non- construction roles (i.e. catering, spa, drivers/handymen, farm, gardeners, events support staff, gatehouse development retail and business outlets and holiday lodge development) will be created.

The applicants have confirmed that they have already embarked upon a local recruitment drive. Appointment letters will be issued immediately upon a successful outcome to the current planning applications, with the intention that the mansion house will be available for events by summer 2017. It is intended to continue with construction phases of future developments after the mansion house refurbishment is completed. Therefore the construction roles will be complimentary to the non-construction posts, rather than replaced by them, affording the opportunity for 168 positions to be created through the approval of the masterplan.

i) Habitats and Species

SPP advises that the presence (or potential presence) of a legally protected species is an important consideration in decisions on planning applications. If there is evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on site or may be affected by a proposed development, steps must be taken to establish their presence. The level of protection afforded by legislation must be factored into the planning and design of the development and any impacts must be fully considered prior to the determination of the application.

The Council’s Biodiversity Officer offers comments regarding invasive non-native species (e.g. Rhododendron ponticum in the wooded areas, some Japanese Knotweed which appears to have been spayed but some plants have re-emerged and Himalayan Balsam present on the site) and request for eradication and site restoration programme. The Masterplan lacks an Ecological Report and a request is made for an Arboriculture Survey.

Any future development proposals will be fully assessed for potential impact on habitats and species with requirements for necessary supporting information. The submission of the Masterplan is not the appropriate time for these to be provided; however the applicant will be made aware of legislative requirements for those works not requiring planning permission. Future applications should, as appropriate, be supported by ecological reports and would be the subject of conditions as necessary. j) Sports Facilities

Sportscotland comment that the site contains outdoor sports facilities and that aerial imagery indicates that there is a playing field to the south of the main building.

There are no formal or recognised sports facilities for public use within the estate. The lawn to the front of the mansion house has played host to cricket matches in the past but has never been formally recognised as a sports pitch. Such a proposal would require the benefit of planning permission. Reference to tennis courts on the plans is historic and these facilities are long overgrown. Any other recreational use would have been in connection with the use of the building and estate as an outdoor centre. k) Flooding

The Council’s Flood Risk Management Team offer no objections subject to conditions. It is noted that site elevations appear to range from about 4m AOD on the southern side of the site at the C10 to over 20 m AOD at the main building. A minor watercourse runs through the eastern section of the site and discharges to the coast after passing under the C10. From the submitted information there would appear to be three main sources of flood risk presented to the overall site, namely, fluvial, coastal and surface water. It is therefore recommended that a topographic survey of the site be undertaken in order to establish whether or not a formal Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required and also to identify topographic lows in which development should be avoided to minimise the risk of surface water flooding. In addition, for coastal flooding, the Council requires a flood protection level from the 1 in 200 year still water level plus allowances for climate change, wave action and 0.6m freeboard. A preliminary estimate suggests that a minimum FFL of 5.20m AOD would meet this requirement. Surface water drainage should be designed to meet the requirements of CIRIA C753 and Sewers for Scotland 3rd Edition.

The Masterplan is an indicative document that sets out how a site could be developed and does extend to the level of detail which would include floor levels. Any future proposals involving new development will require a flood risk assessment to be considered by the planning authority. There is no reason to suspect that flood risk will be a significant constraint in respect of the applicants’ masterplan proposals.

8. CONCLUSION

The proposed Masterplan is considered fit for purpose in that it designates areas of land suitable for different types of development across the Castle Toward estate with appropriate consideration having been given to access requirements, the historic environment and compatibility between existing and potential future uses. The Masterplan provides for a working estate with the aim of a sustainable income to maintain the mansion house and grounds. Proposals such as improved access across the estate, the ability to hold community events and the rent of Castle Toward to Clan Lamont, all represent positive benefits for the community. Meanwhile the proposals will secure the long-term security and improvement of the category B listed mansion house and surrounding structures and the impetus to improve the estate grounds.

The applicant has provided a phased approach detailing when these items are intended to be delivered, with initial investment being focused on the main house. Some of the more ambitious proposals such as the delivery of the deer farm, abattoir and holiday lodges will be market driven, and in an uncertain economic climate it would be unreasonable to expect a specific timetable. Most importantly the applicant has detailed an immediate timetable over the next two to three years. The improvement and maintenance of the mansion house and immediate grounds with the improved access should be completed by summer 2017 with further identified works being completed by the following year. The lack of reliance on finance to be generated by enabling development is welcome and is reflective of the resources available to the applicants to invest in the restoration of historic buildings.

The Masterplan provides for a range of uses which are consistent with the schedule contained within the adopted LDP on the basis of a programme focussed initially on historic building renovation rather than new development. With this in mind, it is recommended that Members approve the Masterplan as a material consideration to future development proposals within the Castle Toward Estate. 9. IMPLICATIONS

Policy: None Financial: None Personnel: None Equal opportunities: None

Author of Report: Brian Close Date: 27/10/2016

Reviewing Officer: David Love Date: 28/10/2016

Angus Gilmour Heads of Planning and Regulatory Services APPENDIX A – CASTLE TOWARD MASTERPLAN

Objectors

20 letters of objection have been received and from these four have not provided postal addresses but are included for completeness.

1. Ms Anna Mackenzie, 5/7 Dudley Avenue South, Edinburgh (email dated 5th September 2016);

2. Mr Chris Baker, Achadh-An-Droma, Dervaig, Isle of Mull (email dated 5th September 2016);

3. Mr Robert Trybis, Stoneywood, Toward (two emails dated 5th September 2016);

4. Mrs Wendy Addison, 15 Highfield Place, Girdle Toll, Irvine (email dated 5th September 2016);

5. Mrs Christine McIntosh, 55 Royal Crescent, Dunoon (email dated 5th September 2016);

6. Mrs Janet Chapman, Lismore, Wyndham Road, Innellan (email dated 5th September 2016);

7. Ms Kerry Nixon, 11 Vinecombe Street, Glasgow (email dated 16th September 2016);

8. Mr Stuart Bradley, 4 Johnston Terrace, Dunoon (email dated 19th September 2016);

9. Ramblers Scotland, Helen Todd, Campaigns and Policy Manager, Caledonia House, 1 Redheughs Rigg, South Gyle Edinburgh (letter dated 22nd September 2016);

10. Mr Alan Stewart, Brackley, Toward (email dated 25th September 2016);

11. Mrs J Trybis, Stoneywood, Toward (emails dated 28th September and 5th October 2016);

12. Mr Ruaridh Pringle, 161 Edward Street, Dunoon (email dated 4th October 2016);

13. Mr. John Mortimer, 6 Manor Way, Tighnabruaich (email dated 21st October 2016);

14. Carol MacQueen (email dated 21st October 2016);

15. Andrew Cruikshank (email dated 21st October 2016);

16. Jim Langford (email dated 21st October 2016);

17. James Murray, Underwood Cottage, Main Road, Sandbank (email dated 28th October 2016);

18. Ms Jennifer Bryson, 173 Marine Parade, Hunters Quay (email dated 3rd November 2016);

19. Mr. Norman New, 11 Wyndham Park, Rothesay (email dated 4th November 2016);

20. Brian Dewar (email dated 5th November 2016). Supporters

Letters of support have been received from the following:

1. Ms Wilma Hodgett, Widgeon, Loch Craignish Cottages, Ardfern, Nr Oban (email dated 22nd September 2016);

2. Mrs Amanda Hampsey, Janbruan, Davidson Place, North Campbell Road, Innellan (email dated 28th September 2016);

3. Mrs Julie Martin, 3C Ulva Road, Oban (email dated 29th September 2016);

4. Lord Leonard Archibald, 4 Thorncliffe, Blairmore (email dated 30th September 2016);

5. Mr Mario Pellicci, 2 Kirk Brae, Dunoon (email dated 30th September 2016);

6. Miss L McPhail, 68 Auchamore Road, Dunoon (email dated 30th September 2016);

7. Mr Sean Hampsey, Janbruan House, North Campbell Road, Innellan (email dated 30th September 2016);

8. Mrs Kathleen Cunningham, Ravenswood, 81 Argyll Road, Kirn (email dated 30th September 2016);

9. Mr James Cunningham, Ravenswood, 81 Argyll Road, Kirn (email dated 30th September 2016);

10. Mrs Susan Hoy, 143 George Street, Dunoon (email dated 30th September 2016);

11. Mrs Marilyn Norton, Kintyre, Newton Road, Innellan (email dated 30th September 2016);

12. Miss Anne Bell, 474 Anniesland Road, Glasgow (email dated 2nd October 2016);

13. Mrs Jennifer McMaster, Tigh Na Creag, Pulpit Rock, Oban (email dated 2nd October 2016);

14. Ms C Gourlay, 474 Anniesland Rd, Glasgow (email dated 3rd October 2016);

15. Antonio Pellicci (email dated 4th October 2016);

16. Ms Barabal GilleMícheil, 19 York Drive, Portree (email dated 4th October 2016);

17. Mrs. Kristina Foskett, Crawford Cottage, Strathlachlan (email dated 6th October 2016);

18. Ms Phillipa Andrews, March Cottage, Ardgarten (email dated 6th October 2016);

19. Mr. Kevin Foskett, Crawford Cottage, Strathlachlan (email dated 6th October 2016);

20. Mr. Angus MacDonald, 11 Hunter Street, Kirn (email dated 7th October 2016);

21. Mrs. Mary MacDonald, 11 Hunter Street, Kirn (email dated 7th October 2016);

22. Mrs. Sara Adlam, 59 Field Lane, Upton, Pontefract (email dated 8th October 2016);

23. Ms. Jennie Pritchard, via email (email dated 1st November 2016);

24. Lucy Mayer (email dated 4th November 2016);

25. Philip Paterson (email dated 4th November 2016)

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

Reference No: 16/00996/PP

Planning Hierarchy: Local Application

Applicant: Keith and Denice Punler

Proposal: Change of use from Class 8 (residential institution) to Class 9 (dwellinghouse), including ancillary housekeepers accommodation and Sui Generis use as a commercial/leisure events venue

Site Address: Castle Toward Mansion House (including Walled Gardens and Greenhouse), Toward ______

DECISION ROUTE

 Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

 Change of use from Class 8 (residential institution) to Sui Generis including use as a commercial / leisure events venue and Class 9 (dwellinghouse), including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation.

(ii) Other specified operations

 None. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations it is recommended that, subject to a discretionary hearing taking place, planning permission be granted be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and advisory notes set out below. ______

Listed Building Consent (ref. 97/00883/LIB) for internal alterations and installation of wheelchair ramp was granted on 25th July 1997 and implemented. Associated applications under consideration

An accompanying masterplan proposal (ref. 16/02356/MPLAN) in respect of Strategic Masterplan Area 1/2 and Potential Development Area 2/42 relating to mixed use development (including tourism/leisure/housing/business) and an associated application for Listed Building Consent (ref. 16/01405/LIB) are both before Committee for consideration.

______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Council’s Roads Engineer (response dated 10th May 2016): No objections. The development is accessed from the C10 Glenstriven Road within the National Speed Limit using existing vehicular access which is suitable for the proposed uses. There is an acceptable level of parking within the grounds that should accommodate the proposed events.

Council’s Public Protection Officer - (expiry date 16th May 2016): No response.

Council’s Access Officer (expiry date 20th May 2016): (responses dated 12th September and 2nd November 2016) Original request for access path information. Updated response comments that the proposed Masterplan will not restrict the use of the Core Path and that the Council has not recognised either of the claimed Public Rights of Way. Further comments regarding future mitigation of potential loss of access or rights of way. Advisory comments.

Sportscotland (response dated 13th June 2016): Sport Scotland has supplied advisory comments with respect to the informal use of the garden area for cricket.

Scottish Water (expiry date 24th May 2016): No response.

South Cowal Community Council (response dated 3rd May 2016): Objection on basis of proposed use different to what the community were told pre-submission and fewer jobs created than originally informed. Other concerns relate to access to the estate. Some non-material concerns have been raised with respect to the sale of the estate and lack of comprehensive approach with piecemeal development instead. ______

(E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 advert (publication date 6th May 2016, expiry date 27th May 2016). ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

There have been a total of 50 representations with 25 in support and 25 raising objections.

Objectors

Letters of objection have been received from the following:

1. Cllr Michael Breslin (e-mail dated 1st May 2016); 2. Mr Brian Dewar, 80A Shore Road, Innellan (2 e-mails dated 10th May 2016);

3. Ian Hodgetts, The Ruberslaw, 105 Shore Road, Innellan (letter dated 10th May 2016);

4. Mrs J Trybis, Stoneywood, Toward (letter dated 11th May 2016);

5. Mr R Trybis, Stoneywood, Toward (letter dated 11th May 2016);

6. Ms Anna Mackenzie, 5/7 Dudley Avenue South, Edinburgh (email dated 11th May 2016);

7. Glyn Collis, Seasgair, Ascog, Isle of Bute (email dated 11th May 2016);

8. Mr Chris. Baker, Achadh-An-Droma, Dervaig, Isle of Mull (email dated 11th May 2016);

9. Mr James Murray, Underwood Cottage, Sandbank (email dated 11th May 2016);

10. Mrs Ann Galliard, Glenshiel, Pier Road, Sandbank (2 emails dated 11th May 2016);

11. Mrs Karen Komurcu, 15 Tigh-Na-Cladach, Dunoon (email dated 11th May 2016);

12. Mr Emlyn Williams, 77a the High Street, Wimbledon Village, London (email dated 11th May 2016);

13. Mrs Norma Murray, Underwood Cottage, Sandbank (email dated 13th May 2016);

14. Mr Alan Stewart, Brackley, Toward, Dunoon (email dated 13th May 2016);

15. Mrs Mary Wooler, 37 Margaret Street, Greenock (email dated 13th May 2016);

16. Mr Ruaridh Pringle, 161 Edward Street, Dunoon (email dated 23rd May 2016);

17. Helen Todd, Ramblers Scotland, Edinburgh (letter dated 20th May 2016);

18. Craig Gilbert, Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society, 24 Annadale Street Edinburgh (letter dated 26th May 2016);

19. Mr Alan Scott, 31 Inverkar Road, Ayr (email dated 2nd June 2016);

20. Ms Kerry Nixon, 11 Vinicombe Street, Glasgow (email dated 12th June 2016);

21. Mr Billy Stewart, Hope Cottage, Gairletter Cottages, Blairmore (email dated 13th June 2016);

22. Mr Brian Nixon, lodge at Hunters Quay Holiday Village (email dated 20th June 2016) ;

23. Carol MacQueen (email dated 21st October 2016);

24. Andrew Cruikshank (email dated 21st October 2016);

25. Jim Langford (email dated 21st October 2016). The concerns raised are summarised below:

 A change of use to a private dwellinghouse will not offer employment and attract visitors to the area. The public were reassured that the current application would be advantageous to the community.

Comment: The proposal offers some employment opportunities and these have been provided by the applicant and are detailed below. In terms of advantages to the community this proposal is one element in the overall strategic approach to the development of the estate. The applicant intends to secure the building and provide a future for it, install footpaths around the estate and secure access to the castle ruins.

 Previous offers proposed employment opportunities;

Comment: Indicative employment details have been submitted as part of the masterplan submission. The circumstances of other offers preceding the sale of the site are not relevant to the consideration of this application. Refer to report below.

 The proposal lacks a comprehensive development plan and should not be dealt in a piecemeal fashion. Current application should not be dealt with until a full masterplan is submitted;

Comment: A masterplan proposal (ref. 16/02356/MPLAN) was submitted on 22nd August 2016 for indicative development of the entire Potential Development Area (PDA) and Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA), together with an application for Listed Building Consent (ref. 16/01405/LIB) for all external and internal alterations to the mansion house. These applications will be considered by committee at the same time.

 Plans greatly restrict access to parts of the estate and prevent use of Rights of Way that run through the property;

 A valuable local resource will be lost if the public are denied access to the estate;

 Whilst Ramblers Scotland does not object in principle to the change of use of the building, they consider that the use will have an impact on the current levels of access to this area. The developers are therefore requested to submit an access plan to be developed with the council and local community and should be include as a planning condition if the application is approved.

 The Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society object on the basis of inconclusive evidence to support an existing right of way through the estate which should be preserved by an access management plan and planning condition.

Comment: There is one recognised right of way through the estate which is the core path. There may be other suggested routes but the council has taken a legal position in this instance. Furthermore information is contained with the assessment below.

 Issues concerning the prospective sale of the site by the Council and the South Cowal Community Development Corporation;

Comment: Circumstances surrounding the sale of the site are not material planning considerations.

 Huge security costs to safeguard the building pre-sale. Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.

Supporters

Letters of support have been received from the following:

1. Mr Angus MacDonald, 11 Hunter Street, Kirn, Dunoon (email dated 23rd May 2016);

2. Mrs Mary MacDonald, 11 Hunter Street, Kirn, Dunoon (email dated 23rd May 2016);

3. Mrs Kristina Foskett, 16 Willow Crescent, Rosyth (email dated 24th May 2016);

4. Mrs Fiona McLauchlan, 2 Sandhaven, Sandbank (email dated 24th May 2016);

5. Mr Nigel Bird 2, Craigford Cottages, Pirnhall, Stirling (email dated 24th May 2016);

6. Mr Ian Gardner, 242 Edward Street, Dunoon (email dated 24th May 2016);

7. Mrs Julie Martin, 3C Ulva Road, Oban (email dated 24th May 2016);

8. Mr G MacEachran, Tigh-Na-Mara, Toward (email dated 24th May 2016);

9. Mrs Jennifer McMaster, Tigh Na Creag, Pulpit Rock, Oban (email dated 24th May 2016);

10. Mrs Pamela Spalding, 2 Relief Land, Main Street South, Inveraray (email dated 25th May 2016);

11. Mr Kevin Foskett, 16 Willow Crescent, Rosyth (email dated 25th May 2016);

12. Ms Phillipa Andrews, March Cottage, Ardgartan (email dated 25th May 2016);

13. Mr Antonio Pellicci, 2 Kirk Brae, Dunoon (email dated 25th May 2016);

14. Dr Colin Martin, 3C Ulva Road, Oban (email dated 25th May 2016);

15. Ms Wilma Hodgett, Widgeon, Loch Craignish Cottages, Ardfern (email dated 27th May 2016);

16. Mr Mario Pellicci, 2 Kirk Brae, Dunoon (email dated 27th May 2016);

17. Mr Peter Andrews, March Cottage, Ardgartan (email dated 30th May 2016);

18. Mr Eric Boyd, 35 William Street, Dunoon (email dated 31st May 2016);

19. Mr Sean Hampsey, Janbruan House, North Campbell Road, Innellan (email dated 2nd June 2016);

20. Kathleen Cunningham, Ravenswood, 81 Argyll Road, Kirn (email dated 2nd June 2016);

21. Mr James Cunningham, Ravenswood, 81 Argyll Road, Kirn (email dated 2nd June 2016); 22. Mrs Marilyn Norton, Kintyre, Newton Road, Innellan (email dated 2nd June 2016);

23. Miss Nadia Punler, Old Farm Cottages, Weydale (email dated 2nd June 2016);

24. Mr Alastair Spencer, 70 Hunter Street, Kirn, Dunoon (email dated 2nd June 2016);

25. Amanda Hampsey, Janbruan House, North Campbell Road, Innellan (email dated 3rd June 2016);

The reasons for expressing support are summarised below:

 Proposed development will bring much needed employment to the area;

 Proposal will bring the mansion house and ground back to the condition they should be in;

 Right of Way through mansion house and immediate grounds is questionable as the previous uses were as a residential school or outdoor education centre;

 Plans are sensitive and in keeping with the castle’s traditions;

 Use as a dwellinghouse does not prohibit other uses taking place i.e. weddings, spa, events;

 Passing the castle into private hands would end the strain on public funds for security and insurance costs;

 The proposed development will act as a catalyst for future business proposals and investment;

 Proposals will save the historic building from falling into disrepair;

 Having a public footpath right beside the mansion house could devalue the property and create privacy problems. An alternative public footpath should be agreed to allow the public access to the estate. ______

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

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

(iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes

A Statement of Intent has been submitted outlining the applicant’s aspirations for the reinstatement of Castle Toward Estate. Rather than convert Castle Toward to a hotel which may be in competition with other businesses, it is intended to convert the mansion house to primarily a sui generis use with scope to cater for a wide variety of events; e.g. weddings, film shoots, music events, community events, corporate stays, shooting and fishing parties etc. Reinstatement of the mansion house will be the first phase in a wider redevelopment of the estate buildings and grounds. Vehicular access to the mansion house will be improved and existing public access through the estate will (subject to refinement of core paths and rights of way) be retained. Development proposals for the estate are described in detail within the Masterplan submission.

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

______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 obligation required: No. ______

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

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

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

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (26th March 2015)

LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 Development within the Development Management Zones (the application site is located within PDA 2/42 and MAST 1/2); LDP PROP 3 The Proposed Potential Development Areas; LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 5 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy; LDP 9 Development Setting, Layout and Design; LDP 10 Maximising our Resources and Reducing Our Consumption; LDP 11 Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure

Development plan schedule

Argyll and Bute Supplementary Guidance (March 2016)

SG LDP ENV 1 Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity; SG LDP ENV 6 Development Impact on Trees / Woodland; SG LDP ENV13 Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV14 Landscape; SG LDP ENV 15 Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; SG LDP ENV 16(a) Development Impact on Listed Buildings; SG LDP ENV 20 Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance; SG LDP BUS2 Business and Industry Proposals in the Countryside Development Management Zones; SG LDP SERV 1 Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) Systems; SG LDP SERV 2 Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS); SG LDP SERV 6 Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation; SG LDP TRAN1 Access to the Outdoors; SG LDP TRAN3 Special Needs Access Provision; SG LDP TRAN 4 New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes; SG LDP TRAN 5 Off-site Highway Improvements; SG LDP TRAN 6 Vehicle Parking Provision; SG2 Sustainable Siting and Design Principles;

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

National Planning Framework 3 (NPF 3) (June 2014); Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (June 2014); Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2014; Applicants Supporting Information; Planning history; Views of statutory and other consultees; Legitimate public concern expressed on ‘material’ planning issues. ______

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

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

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

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: When this application was first submitted on 8th April 2016, the Castle Toward Estate was owned by the Council but it was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Punler on 21st October 2016. ______

(O) Requirement for a hearing: Yes.

As this proposal has attracted a substantial body of representation and given the material considerations associated with this application, it is recommended that a discretionary local hearing be held prior to the determination of the application. ______(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

The site lies within Potential Development Area (PDA) 2/42 Toward – Castle Toward and Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA) MAST 1/2 Castle Toward as defined by the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. The PDA and SMA brief identifies the site as being suitable for mixed use including tourism / education / leisure / housing / business related development.

The proposal relates to the change of use of Castle Toward mansion house and associated garden areas within the central portion of the PDA. An accompanying Masterplan has been submitted to address potential development for the entire PDA and a Listed Building Consent application has been submitted to address alterations to Castle Toward to facilitate the uses intended by way of this application.

The conversion of the mansion house, associated buildings and land within the application site boundary is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the PDA and SMA, and would act as a catalyst for the positive regeneration of a neglected estate.

The application has attracted much attention given the past popularity of Castle Toward as a residential outdoor centre and its use recreational area by the public. Letters of objection have been received from 25 individuals along with 25 letters of support. The representations are finely balanced between objectors who feel that the current proposals will not deliver a community asset in terms of employment and public access through the estate, and supporters who consider the proposals to be vital to the safeguarding of the future of the listed building, whilst also providing sustainable forms of commercial and tourism opportunities.

Officers consider that the intended conversion of the mansion house and associated buildings for sui generis use with scope to cater for events and functions is one which is appropriate, which will safeguard the future of this important building, and provide a venue with tourism and economic development benefits. This application is for the change of use only with no physical works proposed. Alterations and improvements required to deliver the uses proposed are the subject of accompanying application for Listed Building Consent (ref. 16/01405/LIB) and do not require the benefit of planning permission. Officers and Historic Environment Scotland (HES) consider the proposed external and internal works for the listed mansion house building to be acceptable and appropriate to safeguard the character of the building, as detailed in the accompanying report.

The main issue associated with this application would appear to be concerns about potential obstruction to continuous public access through the Castle Toward Estate. Presently, there is an existing Core Path route which runs through the estate and this will be retained in full. Suggestions that other rights of way exist have been investigated and whilst they may have been used by members of the public they do not constitute formal rights of way. In order to assist with continued access, the applicants propose that an existing track leading from the walled garden to the Chinese Lakes will be re- routed to the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen, ensuring that a continuous path will be available around the estate.

Some of the objectors have made reference to the history of Castle Toward and their dissatisfaction with the way in which the site has been disposed of by the Council as former owner. Matters surrounding the recent sale of the site to the applicants are not a material consideration in an assessment of this application for planning permission. The proposal is consistent with the relevant development plan policies. There are no other material considerations, including responses from consultees and representations from third parties, nor matters raised in the assessment of the proposals, which would warrant the setting aside of the presumption in favour of the development established by development plan policy. Refer to Appendix A below for full details and assessment. ______

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes. ______

(R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be granted

The proposed development meets with the aims of both the Potential Development Area and Strategic Masterplan Area designations applicable to Castle Toward as defined by the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. The development of these proposals would result in the positive regeneration of Castle Toward, the wider estate and secure a sustainable future for the preservation of the building, as well as delivering tourism and other economic development benefits. The proposals accord with all other relevant development plan policies and it is therefore appropriate that planning permission be granted in line with development plan policy, subject to recommended safeguarding conditions. ______

(S) Reasoned justification for a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan N/a ______

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

Author of Report: Brian Close Date: 27th October 2016

Reviewing Officer: David Love Date: 28th October 2016

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning & Regulatory Services CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 16/00996/PP

1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 19th April 2016 and the approved drawing reference numbers: L(--)001, unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

NOTES TO APPLICANT

 No internal or external works which would affect the character of the mansion house or any other curtilage structures as buildings of special architectural or historic interest shall be commenced until the necessary Listed Building Consent has been sought and obtained.

 This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. [See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).]

 In order to comply with Section 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start.

 In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed.

 Should the applicant / developer require information regarding the location of Scottish Water infrastructure they should contact Scottish Water Property Searches Department, Bullion House, Dundee, DD2 5BB, tel. 0845 601 8855. The applicant/developer is advised to contact Scottish Water directly concerning connection to public water supply and public wastewater systems - Planning and Development Services, The Bridge, Buchanan Gate Business Park, Cumbernauld Road, Stepps, Glasgow G33 6FB; Customer Connections, Planning and Development, Tel. 0141 414 7660 or at [email protected].

 The applicant/developer is advised by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) that all bats and their roosts are legally protected in Scotland by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) - "the Habitats Regulations" (for details of this protection, see Protected mammals - Bats and Regulations 39-41 and 44-46 of the Habitats Regulations).

If bats are found to be roosting in any trees to be removed or within buildings to be renovated as part of this proposed development, under the Habitats Regulations the developer will need to apply to the Scottish Government for a licence to disturb/destroy bat roost(s) before works can commence. Any licence would need to be in place prior to any works affecting the roosts taking place. SNH can provide further advice as necessary.  The applicant is advised that parts of the application site are contaminated with Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) which will require appropriate treatment.

The applicant/developer should be aware that under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 9 Section 14, it is an offence to ‘plant or otherwise cause Japanese Knotweed to grow in the wild’ and puts the management of this non-native invasive plant in the hands of the landowner. Furthermore, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Japanese Knotweed is classed as a ‘controlled waste’ according to The Environmental Protection Act (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. Soil containing rhizome material can be regarded as contaminated and, if taken off site must be disposed of safely at a suitably licensed landfill site.

Under The Environmental Protection Act, a landowner can be held liable for the spread of Knotweed into adjacent properties and for the disposal of infested soil off site during development which later leads to the spread of Knotweed onto another site.

 The applicant/developer is advised to contact the Council’s Public Protection service in respect of the range of uses proposed and in terms of catering and food hygiene standards The applicant is advised to contact Ms. Ailleachd Vernon, Environmental Health Officer, tel 01369 707153 or at [email protected]. APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 16/00996/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

The Castle Toward estate is identified as Potential Development Area (PDA) 2/42 within the adopted LDP as being suitable for mixed uses, comprising tourism, education, leisure, housing and business. Castle Toward is also identified as a Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA) MAST 1/ 2 which is identified for the same uses as the PDA. The PDA and SMA areas are bounded by the C10 Glenstriven Road to the west and south and by Ardyne Farm and Strathclyde Cottage to the north. The site is bounded to the east by farmland belonging to Toward Farm. The PDA / SMA boundaries are on land within the applicant’s ownership at the time of writing although the site was in Council ownership until recently.

The Castle Toward estate is identified a being within a Garden and Designed Landscape that stretches north and east beyond the PDA / SMA boundaries. With the exception of land around Toward Castle, the majority of the PDA / SMA site also lies within a wider Area of Panoramic Quality.

Policy LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development sets out sustainable development principles. It is considered that the proposed development would make efficient use of dilapidated estate buildings with proposed uses that would be compatible within the range of potential uses prescribed for PDA 2/42. The proposed initial phase of development would be consistent with the settlement strategy and visions for the successful long term development of PDA 2/42 and MAST 1 / 2 as set out in the accompanying Masterplan submission.

Policy LDP DM 1 establishes the acceptable scales of development in each of the zones with the boundaries of all the settlements and countryside zones mapped in the LDP’s Proposal Maps. It should be noted that where specific proposals such as Allocations, PDAs or Areas for Action are defined these would override the general stance towards development for a particular development management zone. That is the case here given the PDA designation of the site.

Policy LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment allows sustainable forms of development to proceed within a clear policy and SG framework that provides protection from inappropriate forms of development; that encourages and supports regeneration; and maintains and enhances the quality of the natural heritage, built environment, landscape features and landscape character of the area.

Policy LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy supports the development of new business which helps deliver sustainable economic growth by taking full account of the economic benefits of any proposed development and focussing regeneration activity and promoting environmental enhancement.

The proposal is for the conversion of the existing Castle Toward mansion house (including walled gardens and greenhouse) from a Class 8 (residential institution) to a Class 9 (dwellinghouse), including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation and sui generis use as a commercial/leisure events venue. With no new buildings proposed at this stage, the conversion of existing buildings to preferred uses prescribed in the PDA / SMA briefs would be consistent with the settlement strategy, subject to the prior approval of a Masterplan covering the whole of the PDA site.

Accordingly, the proposal would be consistent with policies LDP STRAT1, LDP DM1, LDP 3 and LDP 5 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The Toward – Castle Toward PDA site is located on the south eastern coast of the Cowal Peninsula and bounded by the Firth of Clyde to the east and south and by farmland and woodland to the west, north and east. In a wider context, the PDA is bounded by Ardyne PDA 2/43 and Knockdow Estate PDA 2/44 to the west. The nearest settlement is Toward which lies some 2km to the south-east.

The Castle Toward designed landscape occupies a site at the southern end of the Toward Peninsula, 10km south-west of Dunoon and is accessed via the A815. The house and grounds occupy the lower south-facing slopes of Toward Hill, at the southernmost point of the Toward Peninsula with views south to the Island of Bute and beyond to the Firth of Clyde.

The designed landscape designation at Castle Toward extends northwards up Toward Hill to include the Chinese Lakes (reservoirs on Toward Hill to supply the estate which were made into an attractive landscape feature) and Ardyne Farm to the north-west. The C10 Glenstriven Road forms the southern and western boundaries, and to the east, the boundary takes in old estate parkland and is bounded by a commercial coniferous plantation on what was probably former policy woodland. A belt of old policy woodland is included in the designed landscape, which stretches east of the old ruins of Toward Castle. The principal features of the designed landscape, except for the Chinese lakes, are contained within the current estate boundary comprising approximately 150ha (370 acres).

History

Castle Toward is a 19th century country house which was built in 1820 by Kirkman Finlay, former Lord Provost of Glasgow, as his family's country house, to replace a late medieval castle, which was home of the Clan Lamont. It was later owned and extended by Major Andrew Coats, of the Coats family of Paisley, Italian plasterwork was installed in the public rooms in 1920. The entire building was restored and enlarged over the course of the 1920s by the architect Francis William Deas, who also laid out most of the current landscaping. The grounds incorporate the ruins of the original Toward Castle, the Chinese ponds, wooded areas, access to the shore, and views over the Firth of Clyde.

In the Second World War it was requisitioned for military purposes as HMS Brontosaurus and occupied by the navy. Some of the original Nissen huts have survived in the grounds next to the house, and a number of concrete hut bases remain in the grounds between Castle Toward and Toward Castle, largely hidden by trees which have grown in the area. However, some of this forestry has been cleared, revealing partial remains of the huts which once occupied the area. After the war it was sold to Glasgow Corporation and used as an outdoor education facility until closure in 2009. It was occupied latterly by Actual Reality Learning and Leadership Co as an Education Centre for music and art and an Outward Bound centre, prior to being disposed of by Argyll and Bute Council in 2016.

Within the grounds of the house stands the ruined Toward Castle, which dates from the 15th century, and was owned by the Clan Lamont until 1809. The castle was extended in the 17th century, but was abandoned after an attack by the Clan Campbell in 1646. The ruins lie around 500 metres south-east of Castle Toward mansion house.

Architectural Features

Castle Toward is a large Gothic Revival style castellated mansion of ashlar with an octagonal tower at the rear. It was designed by architect David Hamilton and Edward La Trobe Bateman was involved in garden design work in the 1880s. Extensions were added to this building in the 1920s in a style in keeping with the original building.

Within the estate stands the ruinous Toward Castle which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument built in 1475 with bailey and domestic range added in the seventeenth century. The surviving masonry is three storeys high and built of random rubble. It is presently roofless and in a ruinous state. Auchawilling Chapel is a small chapel to the northeast of the modern Castle Toward and is presently ruinous.

The East Walled Garden was built by Finlay in the 19th century. In the 1920s an ogee-roofed glass-fronted loggia, octagonal conservatory and wrought-iron gates were added, very much in the style of Robert Lorimer. Old Auchavoulin House is the end or side of a building situated at the north east angle of the Walled Garden. There is a formal water garden to the south of the 19th century walled garden. There is a large 20th century North Walled Garden to the north of the house which is now abandoned. Both walled gardens and their associated additions are constructed from the same dark grey schist and were designed by the architect Frank W. Deas. A range of heated glasshouses and cold frames which were built by Mackenzie and Moncur beside the North Walled Garden, and workshops were added to the northeast of the house. West Lodge which incorporates estate offices and garages is positioned to the south west of the house. All other lodges have been demolished.

The Viaduct, which carries the Main Drive across the burn, features rustic stone balustrades, gothic stonework and a pedestrian route below. The Chinese Lakes which lie to the north on Toward Hill are a series of stone-lined ponds with islands, linked by finely detailed semi- circular bridges. They are linked to the other landscape features of Castle Toward by a path network. Evidence of a stone-built summerhouse has been uncovered beside the Chinese Lakes.

The Proposal

The application involves the change of use of the mansion house from a Class 8 residential institution to a Class 9 dwellinghouse with ancillary housekeeper accommodation including sui generis use enabling part or all of the building to be occupied periodically and inter-changeably for a range of commercial / leisure uses to cover business meetings / events, private functions (weddings / other celebrations) location events (filming. TV, photography) and arts such as exhibitions and music recitals.

The application site includes the mansion house and associated outbuildings to the rear, lawned areas to the front of the building, the two walled gardens, one to the side and one to the rear of the building, plus former gardener’s accommodation/greenhouses at the rear. The application site defines the planning unit and the extent of the intended curtilage to be occupied alongside the uses proposed. This proposal is for the change of use of buildings and the associated land only and does not include any physical development works. Internal and external alterations to the mansion house are specifically covered in the accompanying application for Listed Building Consent (ref. 16/01405/LIB) and do not require the benefit of planning permission. Other aspects of the wider development intentions for the estate which have been shown indicatively in the accompanying Masterplan submission (ref. 16/02356/MPLAN) will require being the subject of separate applications for planning permission and listed building consent at a later date.

The conversion of the mansion house and the associated buildings and land encompassed within the application site, for the uses proposed, is considered to be consistent with other similar large country houses and estates as a means of being able to generate income whilst acting as a catalyst for wider development. It is common for such houses to accommodate a residential use whilst allowing for occupation for events and functions. This provides a beneficial use for the building as an attractive venue for such purposes whilst maintaining the house in constant occupation with an ongoing source of income to support its upkeep.

The conversion of Castle Toward mansion house and associated buildings and land for the range of uses prescribed above would make appropriate use of a major vacant building and an important historic environment asset and safeguard its future, whilst providing a catalyst for investment in other associated buildings and neglected estate land. The proposal would serve to both conserve the natural and built heritage resource as well as creating local economic development and employment opportunities.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with Policies LDP STRAT1, LDP DM1, LDP PROP 3, LDP3 and LDP9 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

C. Natural Environment

Policy LDP 3 seeks to protect the natural environment. The current application is for the conversion of the mansion house and associated buildings and land only with no physical works proposed as part of this application. Advice is intended to be given to the applicants on potential impact on bats should they be found with the buildings to be converted. To be clear, there is no suggestion or evidence of bats in the main house, however the applicant needs to be aware of their responsibilities in the event that protected species are encountered. Future applications for development proposals will address this matter in more detail should it arise.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with policies LDP STRAT1, LDP3 (and SG LDP ENV1 ) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan in terms of nature conservation interests.

D. Impact on Trees.

Policy LDP 3 states a presumption in favour of development which will protect, conserve or where possible enhance biodiversity, woodland and green networks. The current application is for the conversion of the mansion house and associated buildings and land only and it does not identify any trees intended to be felled as part of the proposals. Advice is to be given to the applicants on potential impact to trees should any require to be felled, lopped or pruned within the curtilage of the buildings to which the application relates. The accompanying Masterplan submission envisages investigates woodland management for the entire PDA area.

It is considered that scope of the proposal will have limited, if any, impact on existing trees or woodland.

Given the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with policies LDP STRAT1, LDP 3 (and SG LDP ENV6) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

E. Built Environment – Listed Buildings and Designed Landscape

Policy LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment, seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the built, human and natural environment.

Matters relating to the external and internal alterations to the mansion house are specifically addressed within the accompanying application for Listed Building Consent (ref. 16/01405/LIB). Given that there are minimal changes proposed to the mansion house at this stage, it is considered that the proposed use of the building would be a positive one and act as a catalyst for future development opportunities around the estate. Accordingly, the proposed development does not raise issues of national significance and that the development would not have a significant impact on Castle Toward as a site included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

Given the supporting information regarding potential uses for the mansion house and associated buildings, and having regard to the accompanying listed building consent application which is intended to facilitate the uses proposed, it is considered that there would be no adverse consequences for the listed assets within the application site, nor any adverse indirect impacts on other cultural heritage assets within the wider estate. Indeed the proposals would lead to investment in the buildings, renovation works and ongoing occupation for economically beneficial use, which would lead to positive historic environment consequences and safeguard the future of this important building.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with policies LDP STRAT1, LDP 3 (SG LDP ENV15 and SG LDP ENV16 (a) and SG LDP ENV19) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

F. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters

The site is served by the A815 from Dunoon and then the C10 Glenstriven Road which begins at the Toward Lighthouse junction. The application makes no change to the current access regime within the site.

The Area Roads Engineer has no objections to the uses proposed. The existing vehicular access is suitable for the proposed uses and there is an acceptable level of parking within the grounds to accommodate demand associated with events.

On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered consistent with policies LDP STRAT1, LDP 11 (and SG LDP TRAN 3, SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN6) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

G. Public Access

The scope of the access arrangements is out with the terms of this application but access details are further assessed as part of the Masterplan application. In summary a core path runs up the western side of the estate whilst objectors have suggested that a further public right of way exists through the estate from the eastern side, the Council have taken legal advice which confirms that only the Core Path is a legitimate right of way. The applicants have however confirmed that the existing track which leads from Toward Castle around the walled garden then up to the Chinese Lakes on the western side of the burn will be re-routed to provide a new alternative access on the eastern side of the burn which would maintain a link on from Toward Castle to the Chinese Lakes.

For information the applicant has agreed a curtilage area with the council as offered by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act. This includes the site boundary minus the paddock areas to the north of the house. This is shown within the Masterplan submission drawing 1544 L(MP)003.

H. Landscape

The site is located within an Area of Panoramic Quality which derives from the scenic qualities of the wider landscape and the interrelationship between narrow sea channels, sea lochs and surrounding steep sided hills. The Kyles of Bute National Scenic Area is to the north-west but does not cover the site.

The proposed change of use would not impact in any material way on the immediate Garden and Designed Landscape, the surrounding Area of Panoramic Quality or the wider National Scenic Area (Kyles of Bute).

The applicant has proposed a formal garden to the front of the main house on the lawn areas. However, this will require the benefit of planning permission and the impact of this on the APQ and the NSA will be assessed at the time of the submission.

On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered consistent with policies LDP STRAT1, LDP 3, LDP9 (and SG LDP ENV12, SG LDP ENV 13, SG LDP ENV14 and SG LDP ENV 15) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

I. Infrastructure

Policy LDP 11 – ‘Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure’ seeks to make best use of our existing infrastructure by ensuring that:

 the location and design of new infrastructure is appropriate; and  standards for drainage, sewage, waste water and water supply are applied.

Castle Toward is currently served by a private water supply. The applicants have however confirmed that they are in discussion with Scottish Water to connect to the public water main. Regardless of this the applicants can opt to maintain the status quo of water supply without the need for further authorisation.

The applicant has advised that the foul drainage system is currently served by septic tanks with a sea outfall. This would remain appropriate for the intended uses which would not impose a greater loading than that associated with past uses. The system would not however be adequate to serve the wider Masterplan proposals and future planning applications would be expected to demonstrate a new system of foul water treatment requiring the benefit of planning permission and authorisation from SEPA.

The applicant does not intend to provide a surface water drainage system as part of this application and given the proposal is for a change of use as opposed to additional built development then it is considered that the proposal will have a neutral effect on the surface water drainage of the area.

On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered consistent with policies LDP 11 (and SG LDP SERV6) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

J. Economic Considerations

Economic impact is a material planning consideration and in this regard SPP 2014 states that “the planning system should promote business and industrial development that increases economic activity while safeguarding and enhancing the natural and built environments as national assets.”

The supporting statement for the accompanying masterplan (ref. 16/02356/MPLAN) contains information regarding the economic benefits of the proposal. It is stated that the proposal would have economic benefits both during the construction and operational phases of the development. In terms of employment generation, the applicants have confirmed that whilst exact numbers are dependent upon a variety of factors, it is anticipated that around 77 full time equivalent roles will be created in the construction phase. It will be the applicant’s policy to source all labour, goods and material locally wherever possible and have already established trading terms with a number of key local suppliers. It is also anticipated that around 91 full time equivalent non-construction roles (i.e. catering, spa, drivers/handymen, farm, gardeners, events support staff, gatehouse development retail and business outlets and holiday lodge development) will be created.

The applicants have confirmed that they have already embarked upon a local recruitment drive. Appointment letters will be issued immediately upon a successful outcome to the current planning applications, with the intention that the mansion house will be available for events by summer 2017. Furthermore, an events venue will attract further people to the area. Although no figures have been provided it is fair to assume that there would be some local economic benefit to the area associated with visitors coming to events staged at the house.

This also accords with Policy LDP 5 which seeks to support the development of new industry and business which helps to deliver sustainable economic growth throughout out area.

K. Sports Facilities

Sportscotland comment that none of the identified outdoor sports facilities on the site would appear to be impacted by the change of use development. There are no formal or recognised sports facilities for public use within the estate and any previous sporting events have been occasional use of the front lawn as a temporary cricket pitch but have not been used for this purpose for some years. The reference to tennis courts on the plans is historic and these facilities are long overgrown.

L. Other Scottish Government Advice

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (June 2014) directs the planning system to support places that are economically, environmentally and socially sustainable by facilitating development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term. SPP introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable economic development and specifies decisions should be guided by principles which favour good design, making efficient use of existing capabilities of land and giving due weight to economic benefit.

With regard to placemaking, SPP stipulates that planning should direct the right development to the right place. Integral to this concept is the re-use and re-development of brownfield land before development takes place on greenfield sites.

SPP sets out principles that the planning system should in all rural and island areas promote a pattern of development that is appropriate to the character and of the particular area and the challenges it faces. Rural developments are also encouraged that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality.

This proposal satisfies a number of the imperatives behind the government’s drive for sustainable economic growth, namely the re-use of redundant buildings, investment in historic assets and the support for new business ventures contributing to local economic development. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the elements of NPF3 and SPP in that it will support the sustainable re-use of a major and prominent vacant building and neglected estate which will create new employment opportunities whilst facilitating the wider regeneration of an important brownfield site.

Argyll & Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle

Reference No: 16/01405/LIB

Applicant: Mrs Denice Punler

Proposal: Demolition of enclosed fire escape, metal fire escape and metal clad sheds. Installation of new doorway, ventilation louvre, balcony railings, 3 new windows, 2 sets of external doors, new glazed roof over existing courtyard. Internal alterations to accommodate leisure facilities at basement level, removal of wall between ballroom and function room, installation of lift and toilets at ground floor level, removal of partitions and installation of partition walls to provide en-suites to first and second floor bedrooms.

Site Address: Castle Toward Residential School, Toward

DECISION ROUTE

 Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Listed Building Consent

 Demolition of enclosed fire escape;  Demolition of metal fire escape and metal clad sheds;  Installation of new doorway, ventilation louvre, balcony railings;  Installation of 3 new windows, 2 sets of external doors;  Internal alterations to accommodate leisure facilities at basement level;  removal of wall between ballroom and function room;  installation of lift and toilets at ground floor level;  removal of partitions and installation of partition walls to provide en-suites to first and second floor bedrooms.

(ii) Other specified operations

 None ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that that the application is approved subject to the conditions and reasons appended below. ______

Listed Building Consent (ref. 97/00883/LIB) for internal alterations and installation of wheelchair ramp was granted on 25th July 1997 and implemented.

There is an associated application for Planning Permission (ref.16/00996/PP) to change the use of Castle Toward mansion house from a residential institution (Class 8) to a dwellinghouse (Class 9) including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation, and sui generis use as a commercial/leisure events venue which appears elsewhere on the agenda.

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Historic Environment Scotland (response dated 30th September 2016): No objections in principle and general acceptance of proposals that can offer a sustainable long term future for the mansion house. Comments regarding proposed glazed roof to service courtyard, and downtaking of wall between the Ball Room and Function Room and introduction of decorative mild steel panels to exterior of principal room windows, external venting of swimming pool and proposed coffee preparation area. Further details required on these aspects but can be secured through conditions.

South Cowal Community Council (response dated 25th September 2016): Objection to the removal of the two Nissen huts to the rear of the building. These are the last two remaining buildings from the Second World War and are of historical importance. ______

(E) Publicity:

Publicity: Listed Building/Conservation Advert, publication date 16th September 2016; expiry date 7th October 2016. ______

(F) Representations:

Letters of objection referencing this application have been received from the following:

Carol MacQueen (email dated 21st October 2016);

Andrew Cruikshank (email dated 21st October 2016);

Jim Langford (email dated 21st October 2016).

Comment: The comments in these emails relate to associated planning application ref. 16/00996/PP and Masterplan submission ref. 16/02356/MPLAN and make no specific comments about the listed building consent proposals. The objections have been recorded and addressed within these accompanying applications. ______

(G) POLICY:

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

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (26th March 2015)

LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development; LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 9 Development Setting, Layout and Design.

Argyll and Bute Supplementary Guidance (March 2016)

SG LDP ENV 15 Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; SG LDP ENV 16(a) Development Impact on Listed Buildings; SG LDP ENV 16(b) Demolition of Listed Buildings; SG 2 Sustainable Siting and Design Principles.

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

SPP, Scottish Planning Policy, 2014 ; Scottish Historic Environment Policy (December 2011); Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (June 2016); Managing Change in the Historic Environment by Historic Environment Scotland. ______

(H) Requirement for a hearing: No

This proposal is associated with masterplan and planning application submissions which have attracted a substantial body of objection and have been recommended to be the subject of a local hearing prior to their determination. It is considered that the issues relating to this application combined with the limited number of objections do not merit a Hearing. However, as the application is related to the masterplan and planning application report, it is recommended that it be determined following the masterplan and planning application Hearings. ______

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

Listed Building Status

Extract from HES Castle Toward designations LB5068 and GDL00097:

“Castle Toward forms part of a Grade B-Group comprising - Castle Toward; Castle Toward, Gate Lodge and Garage; Castle Toward, Walled Garden To East, Walled Garden To North and Glasshouse and Workshop Range; Castle Toward, Chinese Lakes including Bridges. Castle Toward is a large and impressive castellated Gothic-Revival mansion house characterised by its wealth of towers, turrets and good stonework detail. Among numerous architectural features adding to its interest are the porte-cochère, corbelled balcony and tower and garden terrace to S elevation, round tower and courtyard entrance to E and the loggia to W elevation. The early 20th century additions and remodelling faithfully adhere to the Gothic-Revival style of the earlier building while collectively, the programme of aggrandisement at Toward works as an ensemble and is an excellent example of large-scale estate development in Scotland during the inter- war period.

The original mansion house, or 'marine villa' was built by David Hamilton for Kirkman Finlay, a successful merchant and former Lord Provost of Glasgow, who bought the estate of Auchavoulin from the Campbell family in 1818 and renamed it Toward. The New Statistical Account of Scotland notes that there can be "few specimens of modern Gothic more happily conceived" than Hamilton's original design. Between 1919 and 1945, new owner Major Andrew Coats, a member of a wealthy Paisley threadmaking family, invested huge sums of money into the estate. The mansion house more than doubled in size with additional towers to the E and N and the creation of a large W wing including ballroom, billiard room, music room and numerous additional bedrooms.

In 1939, the Government requisitioned the house from Coats for use by the Special Services Operations during World War II. Castle Toward became 'H.M.S. Brontosaurus' during this period in its history, and there are Nissen Huts in the grounds and an Anderson Shelter beside the house. After the war the site was sold to Glasgow Corporation for use as a convalescent school and then outdoor centre run by Strathclyde Regional Council. The gradual decline since then has seen the progressive abandonment of many elements, the demolition of two gate lodges and the felling of many important trees”

The Proposal

This proposal relates specifically to external and internal alterations to Castle Toward mansion house, a Category B listed building. The works also extend to the immediate curtilage which incorporates two World War II Nissen Huts and external terraced areas, but excludes all other buildings and structures within the Castle Toward Estate.

The works covered by this listed building application are in association with the application for planning permission (ref. 16/00996/PP) which seeks to convert the existing redundant Class 8 residential institution into a class 9 dwellinghouse with ancillary housekeeper accommodation including sui generis use enabling part or all of the building to be occupied periodically and inter-changeably for a range of commercial / leisure uses to cover business meetings / events, private functions (e.g. weddings / other celebrations), location events (e.g. filming, tv, photography) and arts (e.g. exhibitions and music venue). The planning application relates to the mansion house, garden, walled gardens and greenhouses only.

Internal works requiring Listed Building Consent include removal of non-historic elements associated with the former institutional use of the building and alterations to support the new use proposed, namely, the creation of bedrooms with en-suites and tea preparation locations, main kitchen fit-outs, new leisure facilities within the basement, disabled access entrance plus general upgrade of toilet provision, new opening between the ballroom and dance floor and upgrading of fire doors. External works include the removal of the metal fire escape stair on the west elevation, removal of masonry enclosed staircase on the north elevation, one window opening to be changed to a doorway, new balcony railings, window ventilation louvres and removal of metal clad sheds / Nissen huts from the rear of the main house.

The main building comprises a basement level with three floors above. The full extent of intended external and internal downtakings and alterations can be found on our website using the reference number, selecting ‘Associated Documents’ and opening ‘Summary of Works’. http://publicaccess.argyll-bute.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Assessment

Policies LDP3 and SG LDP ENV16(a) of the LDP states that development affecting a listed building shall preserve the building or its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. All development that affects listed buildings must be of the highest quality and respect the original structure in terms of setting, scale, design and materials. Supplementary Guidance – Sustainable Siting and Design Guidance 16.2 states that any proposals including character, forms, materials and detailing must all be compatible with the existing building.

Historic Environment Scotland (HES) generally support the proposals that can offer a sustainable long term future for unoccupied listed buildings provided that adaptations respect the character, historic fabric and the settings of such buildings. HES consider that removal of the modern external fire escapes would enhance the building’s special architectural interest. There are however a number of elements of the scheme for Castle Toward that should in HES view be considered further to ensure the protection of the category B listed building’s special architectural interest:

 The proposed down-taking of the wall between the Ball Room and Function Room could detract from the character of the formal, 1921 designed principal entrance hallway. HES suggest that there is scope to introduce large doorway openings in the wall linking the two spaces that could be closed when not in use;

 HES consider that the proposed introduction of decorative mild steel panels to the exterior of the principal rooms’ windows would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the mansion house and should be reconsidered;

 The proposed decorative mild steel barriers to the first floor south and west facing balcony parapets would also in HES view detract from the building’s appearance and suggest that the simple, restrained form of the proposed second floor mild steel hand rail be used for the first floor balcony parapets;

Comment: Further details require to be submitted to provide an improved design solution to satisfy HES on these points. Recommend a condition to provide for this.

 As discussed and agreed at the site meeting on 19 September with the applicant and their agents, detailed proposals for external venting of the basement level pool and proposed coffee prep area proposed doorway are required to demonstrate that the works would not diminish the building’s character and appearance. Comment: Revised details regarding ventilation grille and doorway have been submitted which HES now consider acceptable.

South Cowal Community Council considers that the WWII Nissen Huts should not be removed as proposed and has objected to the application on this basis.

Comment: Although a remnant of the temporary occupation of the building for military purposes in WW2 these structures are of no particular interest in their own right and detract somewhat from the immediate surroundings of the building and its setting. This matter has been discussed on site with the applicants who may now wish to retain these historic structures for domestic purposes. Nonetheless the current proposals for their removal raise no concerns from the department or from HES and it is not considered that there is legitimate cause to require their retention. In the event that consent were to be given for their removal it would become a matter for the applicants to decide whether their retention could be beneficial in terms of their proposals for the conversion and re-use of the mansion house.

Overall, the scope of the external and internal alterations would have limited impact on the building and would redress some past unsympathetic alterations and facilitate the intended use of the building for a variety of purposes. The removal of the large external fire escape stairs would significantly improve the overall appearance of the building. The existing internal layout has allowed en-suite facilities to be created with limited impact on the character of the building.

Conditions are recommended regarding the suitable partitioning or opening up of the ballroom and function room at ground level, decorative mild steel panels to the exterior of the windows to principal room windows to the first floor south and west facing balcony parapets to address particular matters identified by Historic Environment Scotland.

The proposals represent an overall positive impact on the condition of the building. By allowing the proposed works to proceed with conditions the re-use and the long term future of the building can be assured. It is worth noting that as soon as they applicant became the owners they commenced with maintenance and repair works to the building (not requiring permission) which demonstrates their commitment to this proposal.

Having due regard to the above, the proposal is considered to accord with policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 3, LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 13, SG LDP ENV15, SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 16(b), and SG 2 of the approved Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. ______

(J) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ______

(K) Reasons why Listed Building Consent should be granted

The listed building consent application represents a sensitive proposal for the intervention into the fabric of the building without altering key features. The applicant has demonstrated an ability to maintain original features and character whilst introducing modest changes to facilitate the proposed re-use of the building without compromising the building’s existing status. Historic Environment Scotland has visited the site and been extensively involved in discussions with the applicant and planning authority and are content with the proposals subject to residual concerns being successfully dealt with via conditions.

With this in mind the application is considered consistent with the following policies and provisions of the adopted development plan: LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 3, LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 13, SG LDP ENV15, SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 16(b), and SG 2 of the approved Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan and with key material consideration Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Managing Change in the Historic Environment and Scottish Planning Policy. ______

(L) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers: No ______

Author of Report: Brian Close Date: 27th October 2016

Reviewing Officer: David Love Date: 28th October 2016

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning & Regulatory Services CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 16/01405/LIB

1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 17th May 2016 and the approved drawing reference numbers: 1544-L(--)001, 1544-L(--)002, 1544-L(--)010 RevA, 1544-L(--)011 RevA, 1544-L(--)012 RevA, L(--)013 RevA, L(--)014 RevA, L(--)015 RevB, L(--)016 RevB, L(--)017 RevB, 1544- L(--)022 RevA, 1544-L(--)023 RevA, 1544-L(--)024 RevA, 1544-L(--)025 RevA, L(--)018 RevC, L(--)019 RevB, L(--)020 RevB, L(--)021 RevB, L(--)030 RevA, L(--)031, L(--)032, L(--)033, L(--)034, L(--)035 proposed protective barriers to west elevation, L(--)035 proposed new gate to east courtyard, unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

2. That the works to which this consent relates must be begun within three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: to comply with Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.

3. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, no works shall commence on the decorative mild steel panels to the exterior of the principal rooms’ windows, or on the decorative mild steel barriers to the first floor south and west facing balcony parapets, until revised details have been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland and consent has been given in writing.

Reason: In the interest of safeguarding the architectural character of this listed building.

4. No works shall commence on the down-taking of the wall between the Ball Room and Function Room until revised details of the intended means of subdivision of these spaces have been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland and consent has been given in writing.

Reason: In the interest of safeguarding the architectural character of this listed building.

Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services

Reference No: 16/02350/PP

Planning Hierarchy: Local

Applicant: Mr Alexander McLachlan

Proposal: Erection of Garage and Associated Works

Site Address: Flat 1, 22 Marine Place, Rothesay, Isle of Bute ______

DECISION ROUTE

(i) Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission  Erection of domestic garage  Removal of stone boundary wall  Erection of infill boundary wall and gate

(i) Other specified operations

 N/A ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and informative notes provided within this report. ______

An application for Planning Permission (ref: 16/00525/PP) for the erection of a garage and associated works was withdrawn in April 2016 as a result of concerns expressed by the Department in respect of the scale and positioning of the proposed garage. ______(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads Manager (report dated 13th October 2016)

No objections subject to conditions. ______

E) PUBLICITY:

Neighbour notification (expiry 22nd September 2016), Conservation Area Advert (expiry 7th October 2016) and Conservation Area site notice (7th October 2016) ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

Objections have been submitted from a total of eleven sources, as follows:

Mrs E Campbell, 9 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter received 16th September 2016) Mrs A Hope, 4 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 23rd September 2016) Mr A Fowler, 7 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 24th September 2016) Mrs A Fowler, 7 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 24th September 2016) Dave Finlayson, 8 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 27th September 2016) Laura Finlayson 8 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 27th September 2016) Alexander H Smith, 1 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 28th September 2016) John E Chapman, 6 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 28th September 2016) Irene C Chapman, 6 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 28th September 2016) William Y Milton, 2 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 28th September 2016) Margaret Milton, 2 Wyndham Court, Rothesay (letter dated 28th September 2016)

The points raised can be summarised as follows:

i. Concern is expressed that access to the proposed garage would be from an already congested road where the applicant currently parks a van and campervan.

Comment: The road to Wyndham Court is unclassified but is publicly adopted. Based upon the information submitted by the agent, the proposed garage would store the vehicles that are currently parked on this road. Whilst the Council as Planning Authority could not compel the applicant to park his vehicles within the proposed garage, it is highly likely that the creation of an indoor parking area that could accommodate the size of vehicles that he has would represent an improvement on the existing situation. ii. Clarification is sought as to the “associated works” referred to in the application.

Comment: As confirmed by the agent, these works involve the removal of the existing stone boundary wall; the formation of the small section of slightly ramped 'driveway'; the proposed gates; and any making good and returns of the boundary walls between 22 Marine Place and Marine Cottage. iii. Concern is expressed that the loss of the stone boundary wall would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.

Comment: This issue will be addressed in the assessment contained within Appendix A below. iv. Concern is expressed that the proposed garage would be too close to overhead power lines.

Comment: Scottish and Southern Energy (e-mail dated 2nd November 2016) has confirmed that the proposed development is in close proximity to an overhead electric line and it has recommended that the applicant should be advised of the need to follow the guidance of Health & Safety Executive document GS 6 “Avoidance of Danger from Overhead lines”. The applicant should also be advised to contact SSE prior to proceeding with the development in order that a quotation can be prepared for the deviation of the overhead line. v. Some of the residents of Wyndham Court have medical issues requiring clear access from Wyndham Road for emergency vehicles. Wyndham Court has been used in the past for the applicant to park junk vehicles which have obstructed access.

Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. vi. The applicant, who owns 22 Marine Place, also owns the flat-roofed garage at the bottom of the garden. For the purposes of this application, the applicant has decided to split 22 Marine Place into Flat 1 and Flat 2 which implies that Flat 2 owns the present garage. This garage actually stores tools and equipment continually used by the occupant of Flat 1.

Comment: In his supporting statement, the applicant has explained the circumstances relating to the use of the existing and proposed garages (please see Section (G) (v) below. Lack of need for a proposed development does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. vii. The applicant consistently ignores the Deed of Conditions for Wyndham Court.

Comment: This issue is essentially a legal matter between the relevant parties and it does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. viii. The proposed building would be far larger than a normal household garage and, in floor area, it would only be marginally smaller than the dwellinghouses in Wyndham Court and would be larger than the adjacent dwelling, Marine Cottage. To all intents and purposes, it is the size of a small commercial garage or holiday cottage.

Comment: This issue will be addressed in the assessment contained within Appendix A below.

ix. The size, design and construction of the proposed garage would not be in keeping with the aims of the Argyll and Bute’s Conservation Area policy which seeks to “preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.”

Comment: This issue will be addressed in the assessment contained within Appendix A below.

x. There were serious shortcomings in the plans associated with the resubmitted application because the overall width, length and height had been omitted from the submitted plans. It is, therefore, assumed that the applicant is now aware of the controversial size and height of this large building and decided to make the fundamental dimensions difficult to ascertain.

Comment: The application was accompanied by plans that contained a recognised metric scale with dimensions stated in terms of the length and breadth of the garage. The elevation drawings did not specify the height to the apex of the garage as a dimension and the roof plan erroneously indicated a pitch of 45 degrees. Upon drawing these points to the agent’s attention, he immediately rectified them by the submission of amended drawings and it is considered that the information currently available allows the impact of the garage to be properly assessed.

xi. The application form states that there is no on-street parking permitted in the immediate area. This is incorrect as there is street parking immediately outside his property in Marine Place and in the very nearby Wyndham Road.

Comment: Lack of need for a proposed development does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xii. Based upon its height of 4.65 metres, the proposed garage will dominate and aesthetically overpower the narrow entrance to Wyndham Court and the neighbouring and noteworthy Marine Cottage simply because it does not take into account the careful and sympathetic planning that the Council undertook in the vetting and approval of the plans for Wyndham Court. The re-positioning of the proposed garage further away from the road is, at best, superficial and makes no difference except to worsen the outlook for the neighbours.

Comment: This issue will be addressed in the assessment section contained in Appendix A below.

xiii. Concern is expressed that trees within the site will either need to be removed or will be damaged and undermined when the construction works take place.

Comment: There is one tree within the application site that is likely to be felled in order to accommodate the proposed garage. Given that this is not a particularly significant specimen, its contribution to the character of the Conservation Area is negligible and, as such, its removal is deemed to be acceptable. ______

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

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

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

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

(v) Supporting Statement

The agent has submitted a statement in support of the application and in response to the points that have been raised by objectors (letter dated 12th October 2016 and received on 28th October 2016). This can be summarised as follows:

 The applicant is the owner of Flat 0 and Flat 1, which comprise the two separate properties at 22 Marine Place. The property was separated from a single dwelling into two autonomous dwellings, a lower 2-bedroom flat and upper flat 3-bedroom flat, in 1957. There is no application to join the two properties, nor is there an intention to do so. The properties were purchased separately and the upper flat is sub-let to the tenants;

 The application is for the construction of a tandem garage intended to solve two issues; the lack of off-street parking for the tenants and an enlarged parking height for the applicant. As such, the use of the proposed garage is intended for the applicant with the existing garage being assigned to the tenants after construction for their use. The tenants do not currently have any access to off-street parking or external storage and the existing garage no longer serves the needs of the applicant;  The applicant intends to use the proposed garage to store their motor home and a car. The use of the proposed garage is intended entirely as an ancillary building to the dwelling at 22 Marine Place and there is no intention of commercial activities, nor the storage of commercial vehicles. All the vehicles the applicant intends to store within the garage are for personal use;

 Wyndham Court is not an adopted road, but owned in trust by all properties with an access on the road - which includes the applicant’s property. Due to parking restrictions on surrounding roads (in particular on Marine Place, which is the main sea frontage promenade of the Conservation Area), the applicant and the tenants have little choice but to store their vehicles to the rear of the property, on Wyndham Court. The purpose of the application is to construct a suitable garage for housing these vehicles safely and securely;

 Whilst the applicant parks his vehicles in such a way so as not to block Wyndham Court, in doing so this means that he cannot simultaneously access his garage or the rear of the property. The application proposes to remedy this and would reduce the vehicles parking on Wyndham Court;

 The height of the proposed garage has been significantly reduced and is well below the overhead power lines. During construction, due diligence will be taken to assure the appropriate methods are used;

 Whilst 22 Marine Place is within a Conservation Area and any development within that area is to the planning office's discretion, the focus of the Conservation Area at Ardbeg is primarily to preserve the character of the water frontage. In that respect, the character of the frontage is more likely to be affected by the opening of a driveway to the front of the property, which has been discounted as an option on those grounds;

 The stone wall at the rear of the property on Wyndham Court is a small section, which stands in isolation as all other areas of the wall have been demolished. The section of Wyndham Court from Wyndham Road to Marine Cottage is predominantly a 'lane' upon which no house frontages occur. Rather there are blank side walls of properties, garages, ancillary buildings attached to dwellings on Marine Place and a sub-station. This 'lane' aspect pre-dates the later houses in further West along Wyndham Court and is in keeping with the historic use of the land as an adjoining way between Wyndham Road and Burnside Road with a widening of common ground where the collection of bungalows are now situated;

 There are no protected trees on the site. There is shrubbery which requires to be cleared prior to construction;

 This proposal is for an ancillary building; however, the materials selected are chosen with respect to the adjacent houses - namely Marine Cottage. The relatively recent development at Wyndham Court achieves with the same palette; white rendered walls and dark grey concrete tiles for the roof;

 There may be a misunderstanding of the terminology “associated works”. There is a reference to this under the description of the proposals on the planning portal and it can be clarified that this relates only to the information contained within the application drawings that is not entirely covered by the description 'erection of garage', such as the formation of the small section of slightly ramped 'driveway'; the proposed gates; and any making good and returns of the boundary walls between 22 Marine Place and Marine Cottage.

 From inspection of the Deed of Conditions, there is permission for access from Wyndham Court to the rear of the property at 22 Marine Place. The reference to commercial properties is assumed to refer to the accusation of future use by the applicant, which is addressed above. It is worthwhile to add that any intention to do so would require a further planning application for a change of use, which presumably would be refused based on the deed;

 The reference to caravans and tents is assumed to refer to Section 73 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act in order to refuse such items to be located on Wyndham Court for 'human habitation' - which is obviously not intended. However, it may be that this is in reference to the parking of caravans or tents, which are defined in the act as mobile forms of temporary dwelling without any means of being moved without another vehicle etc. To my knowledge, no caravans or tents have been parked or kept on Wyndham Court by the applicant;

 The objections have come from residents of Wyndham Court entirely, with the exception of the adjoining property to 22 Marine Place, Marine Cottage. Whilst none of the properties on Wyndham Court directly overlook the site, there are general concerns about the appearance of the proposals. The selection of materials has been coordinated to suit the surrounding buildings in order to negate the effect of the proposal on the existing environment in Wyndham Court. The garage door, which faces onto Wyndham Court, is proposed to be clad in a treated Larch timber, which creates a softer palette, and references the older garage behind 21 Marine Place.

______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

(i) Is a Section 75 obligation required: No ______

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

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

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

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015

LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure

Supplementary Guidance 2016

SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ENV 17 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP TRAN 4 – New Access Regimes

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

Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011 Managing Change in the Historic Environment Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Consultee responses Third Party Representations ______

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

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

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

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______

(O) Requirement for a hearing: No ______

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

The proposal involves the erection of a garage within the rear curtilage of Flat 1, 22 Marine Place, Rothesay, Isle of Bute. It would measure 14.5 metres in length; 6 metres in breadth; and 4.5 metres in height to the apex of the roof. It would be located approximately 4.28 metres back from the edge of the road surface that leads to the residential development at Wyndham Court. It would have a white smooth cement render external wall finish; a dark grey-coloured concrete tile roof covering; a larch door; and white upvc fenestration.

In taking into account the particular character of this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area; the relative location of the site somewhat removed from the more visually important streetscapes; and the appropriate scale, siting and design of the proposed garage, the development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance the Policies and Supplementary Guidance contained within the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. ______

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes ______

(R) Reasons why planning permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted

The proposal involves the erection of a garage within the rear curtilage of Flat 1, 22 Marine Place, Rothesay, Isle of Bute. In taking into account the particular character of this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area; the relative location of the site somewhat removed from the more visually important streetscapes; and the appropriate scale, siting and design of the proposed garage, the development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the following:

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015

Supplementary Guidance 2016

The proposal raises no other material considerations that would justify refusal of permission. ______

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

Not applicable ______

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

Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 31/10/2016

Reviewing Officer: David Love Date: 02/11/2016

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO: 16/02350/PP

1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings: Drawing No. PL 01 Rev A; Drawing No. PL 02; Drawing No. PL 03 Rev A; Drawing No. PL 04 Rev A; Drawing No. PL 05 Rev A; and Drawing No. PL 06 Rev A unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

2. Prior to the commencement of works on the roof of the garage hereby approved, full details of the proposed roof covering shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, such details shall incorporate the use of a natural slate or good quality slate substitute. The roof shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in order to achieve a good quality roof covering in recognition of the location within the Rothesay Conservation Area and for the avoidance of doubt.

NOTES TO APPLICANT

3. This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. [See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).]

4. In order to comply with Section 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start.

5. In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion of Development ’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed.

6. The Area Roads Manager has stated the following:

i. Prior to the garage hereby approved first coming into use, the vehicular access to the road that serves the dwellinghouses in Wyndham Court shall be constructed and visibility splays measuring 20 metres from a 2.0 metre set back at the centre point of the access must be free of all obstructions (including walls, fences, hedges, etc.) over one metre in height above the level of the road and thereafter maintained in perpetuity;

ii. The garage door must not extend over the verge and onto the road;

iii. The applicant is to ensure that the construction of the existing manhole is suitable for vehicles to pass over on a regular basis and the costs of any mitigation measures will be borne by the applicant;

iv. Permission from Argyll and Bute Council Street Lighting Section will be required if the lighting column is to be re-sited and the costs of any re-siting will be borne by the applicant; v. A Road Opening Permit will be required for all works on or adjacent to the road.

For further details on any of the above points, please telephone 01369 708600.

7. Scottish and Southern Energy has confirmed that the proposed development is in close proximity to an overhead electric line and it has recommended that the developer should follow the guidance of Health & Safety Executive document GS 6 “Avoidance of Danger from Overhead lines”. The developer should also contact SSE prior to proceeding with the development in order that a quotation can be prepared for the deviation of the overhead line. APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 16/02350/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

From a settlement perspective, the application site is located in the rear curtilage of Flat 1, 22 Marine Place adjacent to the road that leads into the residential development at Wyndham Court. It is within the settlement of Rothesay (which is one of Argyll and Bute’s Main Towns) where there is a presumption in favour of a wide range of development. The principle of the current proposal, therefore, accords with Policy LDP DM 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development (Including Impact upon Built Environment)

The application site is situated within the Rothesay Conservation Area together with the Bute Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ). Given the location of the proposal within the rear curtilage of a flatted property and the relatively modest scale of the proposed garage, there would be no effect upon any panoramic views from either within or outwith the Isle of Bute. The proposal, therefore, accords with Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP ENV 13 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

The proposal involves the erection of a garage, ostensibly to accommodate two vehicles, within the rear curtilage of 22 Marine Place. Based upon information supplied by the agent, it appears that the proposed garage will be used by the applicant who occupies the lower flat whilst the adjacent existing garage will be assigned to the tenants of the upper flat after the construction of the proposed garage.

22 Marine Place is a one-and-a-half storey detached stone villa that has been sub- divided horizontally into two flats. The building forms part of the attractive waterfront area that stretches from Port Bannatyne to Ardbeg including Shore Road, Pointhouse Crescent and Marine Place itself. There are views overlooking the south Cowal peninsula in the distance. The property incorporates a rear garden area that runs in a south westerly direction and which terminates at the internal access road serving the housing development at Wyndham Court.

There are two components to the south-western boundary of the rear curtilage. Firstly, there is a stone wall that reaches 2.2 metres in height and 9.4 metres in length. Adjacent to this wall is an existing garage that is green and white in colour with a monopitched roof. The south western boundary of the Rothesay Conservation Area runs along the route of the stone wall in this location with the application site being within the designated area albeit at its outer edge.

There are three main issues pertaining to the impact of the proposal upon the built environment, as follows:

The Loss of the Existing Stone Boundary Wall

As stated above, the frontage of the application site contains a 2.2 metre high stone boundary wall. In the context of its surroundings, the presence of this wall is somewhat of an anomaly as it is essentially the only part of stone wall that remains along the access road that leads from Wyndham Road into Wyndham Court. The housing development within the latter has timber boundary fences. On this basis, the loss of the wall is considered to have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area. The Impact of the Proposed Garage Upon the Rothesay Conservation Area

Whilst the rear curtilage of 22 Marine Place is strictly speaking within the boundaries of the Rothesay Conservation Area, it would be reasonable to conclude that the principal reason for the designation of this townscape relates to the character of the buildings and their particular waterfront location. Given its relatively distant position from the waterfront; its location adjacent to an internal access road for a cul-de-sac development; and the presence of adjoining existing garages of no architectural merit, it is considered that the contribution of the application site to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is limited.

In terms of the actual garage itself, it would measure 14.5 metres in length; 6 metres in breadth; and 4.5 metres in height to the apex of the roof. It would be located approximately 4.28 metres back from the edge of the road surface that leads to the residential development at Wyndham Court. It would have a white smooth cement render external wall finish; a dark grey-coloured concrete tile roof covering; a larch door; and white upvc fenestration.

In terms of the settlement pattern, the proposed garage represents an infilling of the gap between the existing garage and the dwellinghouse known as Marine Cottage. It is acknowledged that the floor area of the proposed garage is relatively sizeable in the context of ancillary domestic outbuildings (approximately 87 square metres). However, having regard to the size of the curtilage of the flatted dwellinghouse that it would be associated with, it is not considered that it would represent overdevelopment.

The two most significant views of the proposed garage from public viewpoints would be from Wyndham Road looking along the road that serves Wyndham Court; and from Wyndham Court itself. In terms of its vertical scale, the height of the proposed garage (to the apex of the roof) would be 4.5 metres. This would be 0.53 metres higher than the roof apex of Marine Cottage to the north west and 0.95 metres higher than the top of the garages to the south east.

The agent has submitted 3D images which indicate that, by virtue of the 4.28 metre setback, the proposed garage would not appear dominant in the view from Wyndham Road even although it would be higher than the adjacent buildings. From this view, the roof apex of the garage would just be visible above the two garages but this height differential would be negligible.

The garage would certainly be more visible from certain parts of the Wyndham Court development but would read as part of the linear row of buildings incorporating Marine Cottage; the two garages; and 43 Wyndham Road. It is not considered that the height differential in comparison with the adjacent buildings (ranging from 0.53 metres to 0.95 metres) would result in a building that would dominate the other properties in the row to an unacceptably significant degree.

In terms of the proposed materials and colours, it is important to consider the building in its context. In this regard, there is a mixture of finishes ranging from dry dash render (Wyndham Court) to painted stonework (Marine Cottage and the gable of 37-39 Wyndham Road) to a wet dash render (the adjoining garages). In the clear absence of a predominant external wall finish, the application proposes a relatively simple smooth cement render that would be painted white. It is considered that such a render would not be of detriment to the local townscape.

Similar to the external wall finish, there is no predominant roof covering with 43 Wyndham Road and all of the dwellinghouses in Wyndham Court having a dark grey- coloured concrete tile roof covering and Marine Cottage having a natural slate roof. The application proposes matching the concrete roof tile although there may be an opportunity to agree uplift to a natural slate. In this regard, a condition will be attached that will require the roof covering to be agreed prior to any works to the roof taking place.

The proposed fenestration has a vertical emphasis with transom bars and will be constructed of a white upvc. The windows will only be readily visible from within the garden areas and rear elevations of the subject property and those surrounding it. Given that the proposal would essentially be an outbuilding in a relatively visually inconspicuous location, it is considered that the proposed window details would be appropriate.

In drawing together all of the above, it is considered that the proposed garage would have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area.

The Impact of the Proposed Garage Upon Marine Cottage

It has been judged in the comments above that the proposed garage would not appear visually incongruous in the context of the adjoining properties. The main issue relative to Marine Cottage, therefore, is whether the proposed garage would adversely affect the amenity of the dwellinghouse to a significant degree.

Marine Cottage is a single-storey dwellinghouse that is located to the north-west of the application site. Its south eastern external wall would be positioned approximately 3.5 metres from the external wall of the proposed garage. Its height is 3.97 metres compared to the height to the eaves of 2.92 metres and the overall height of 4.5 metres of the proposed garage.

No openings are proposed in the external wall of the proposed garage that would face Marine Cottage and its rear curtilage. It is considered that the proposed garage would be of a sufficient distance and of a sufficiently low height to avoid any significantly adverse effect upon the amount of daylight entering the garden of Marine Cottage. The occupier of Marine Cottage has been notified of the proposal and has not raised any objection.

In these particular set of circumstances, therefore, it is not considered that the proposed garage would unduly affect the amenity of the occupiers of Marine Cottage.

Having regard to all of the foregoing, it is considered that the proposal accords with policies LDP 3 and LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance policies SG LDP ENV 16(a) and the Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

C. Road Safety

The Area Roads Manager has no objections to the proposal subject to a number of conditions. These include the formation and maintenance of visibility splays measuring 20 metres by 2 metres; the method of opening of the gate; maintaining the integrity of an existing manhole; the potential re-locating of a lighting column; and the requirement for a Road Opening Permit.

The only one of the above stipulations that might reasonably be regarded as having the potential to be attached as a planning condition is the first one. Indeed, the requirement to form and maintain visibility splays is often attached as a condition to a Planning Permission.

In this particular case, the road from which access would be taken to the garage is publicly adopted but unclassified. The footpath is approximately 1.5 metres wide along the site frontage with the consequence that the sightline set back distance is only an additional 0.5 metres into the site. Given that the Council would be highly unlikely to allow any obstructions over the public footpath, one must consider whether the other land within the visibility splays would have the potential to be the subject of obstruction. In this particular case, such a scenario would be unlikely and, therefore, it is considered that the attaching of a condition would be neither necessary nor reasonable. Notwithstanding this, the sightlines will be drawn to the attention of the applicant as an informative note.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy LDP 11 and Supplementary Guidance policy SG LDP TRAN 4 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015.

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL

DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 16th November 2016

ADVERTISEMENT & SIGNAGE POLICY TECHNICAL WORKING NOTE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 In line with the Committee Report which was presented to PPSL in May 2016, a new Technical Working Note on Advertisements and Signage has been developed in consultation with the Council’s roads officers and Transport Scotland who are responsible for Trunk roads and following a short survey of Oban Businesses regarding A boards.

1.2 The Technical Working Note sets out why advertisement consent is required, the preferred arrangements for particular types of sign, the attendant road safety and amenity issues and the circumstance where formal enforcement proceedings would be initiated for unauthorised signs.

1.3 The Technical Working Note has been written so that, when approved, it can provide a clear guide and framework for businesses and the public to determine what requires consent, what is likely to be acceptable in terms of achieving consent, and the processes involved. It is hoped this will bring about a more consistent and regulated approach to advertising and signage.

1.4 The most contentious element of the proposed Technical Working Note is likely to be; reflecting the opinions of the survey, to allow ‘A’ Boards subject to size restrictions and ensuring a 1.8m width of pavement.

1.5 It is proposed that The Advertising and Signage Technical Working Note undertake public consultation using an on-line method such as ‘Survey Monkey’ for a period of no less than 28 days to allow the public and business community to provide comment on the proposed policy prior to its’ formal adoption by the PPSL.

2.0 RECOMMEDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that the PPSL note the results of the survey on A boards undertaken in Oban, and agree to the Advertisement & Signage Policy Technical Working Note being issued for a period of on-line public consultation to allow feedback that will be brought back to the Committee in 2017 together with any recommended changes to the policy in light of comments received.

1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL

DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 16th November 2016

ADVERTISEMENT & SIGNAGE POLICY TECHNICAL WORKING NOTE

2.0 SUMMARY

2.1 In line with the Committee Report which was presented to PPSL in May 2016, a new Technical Working Note on Advertisements and Signage has been developed in consultation with the Council’s roads officers and Transport Scotland who are responsible for Trunk roads

2,2 The new Technical Working Note on advertising and signage (appendix A) sets the circumstances where signs and advertising is permissible and those circumstances where it is not, including reference to shop fronts, commercial banners, illuminated signs, and advance signs. The Technical Working Note also sets out those circumstances where enforcement proceedings may be initiated. .

2.3 A short survey of businesses’ attitudes to A boards on footways within Oban town centre was recently undertaken by Bid4Oban and the results of the questionnaire are shown in appendix B.

2.4 The Advertising and Signage Technical Working Note has not yet been subject to any form of public consultation and it is proposed that this be undertaken using an on-line method such as ‘Survey Monkey’ for a period of no less than 28 days to allow the public and business community to provide comment on the proposed policy prior to its’ formal adoption by the PPSL.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 It is recommended that the PPSL note the results of the survey on A boards undertaken in Oban, and agree to the Advertisement & Signage Policy Technical Working Note being issued for a period of on-line public consultation to allow feedback that will be brought back to the Committee in 2017 together with any recommended changes to the policy in light of comments received.

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The control of advertisements in Argyll and Bute under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 has been found to be difficult over a long period of time, largely due to the contradictory nature of signage where businesses wish to have maximum exposure yet there is the need to avoid a 2 proliferation of advertisements and signage that has an adverse impact on the amenity of our town centres and countryside.

4.2 The new Advertisement & Signage Technical Working Note seeks to allow some flexibility, particularly in respect of A boards in our towns, but there is also a recognition that not every business will be able to get the signage they might wish due to their particular location and over-riding concerns about road safety and/or amenity.

4.3 The Technical Working Note makes it clear that businesses seeking signs, other than shop fronts will have to comply with the policy and that there are powers of enforcement that stand distinct from those applied through planning control, and that the Council could remove unauthorised signs under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 where there are road safety concerns, including the safety of pedestrians on footways.

4.4 The Technical Working Note has been written so that, when approved, it can provide a clear guide and framework for businesses and the public to determine what requires consent, what is likely to be acceptable in terms of achieving consent, and the processes that are involved.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 Signs and advertisements are recognised as a necessary component of a healthy retail and business environment particularly in our main towns. However, there is also increasing awareness that allowing an un-regulated approach can have ramifications in terms of both amenity and pedestrian safety on footpaths.

5.2 The proposed Technical Working Note reflects this and the requests by Members to devise a more consistent approach. It has been written such that it will provide a detailed guide for local businesses and the public, which hopefully in itself may generate some improved consistency.

6.0 IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Policy None

6.2 Financial None

6.3 Legal Failure to control advertisements on footways could have legal ramifications in terms of public liability and the Council’s duty of care.

6.4 HR None

6.5 Equalities Failure to address obstructions on the footway could impact the disabled.

6.6 Risk Public safety and the consequent legal responsibilities. 3 6.7 Customer Services None

Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Policy Lead - Cllr David Kinniburgh

7th November 2016

For further information contact: Ross McLaughlin

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Advertisement & Signage Policy Technical Working Notes 2016 Appendix 2 Bid4Oban Survey results

4 Argyll and Bute Planning Service ADVERTISEMENT & SIGNAGE POLICY TECHNICAL WORKING NOTES 2016

[Type text]

1 CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 1

2.0 Designing your sign or advert …………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

3.0 What Permissions or Consents do you need? …………………………………………………………….. 3

4.0 Signage within settlements ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

5.0 Shop front signage ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

6.0 Advertising on street furniture ………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

7.0 Advertisements in Conservation Areas and on Listed Buildings ………………………………… 10

8.0 Commercial Banners …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

9.0 Estate Agents’ Boards ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

10.0 Other temporary advertisements ………………………………………………………………………………. 12

11.0 Illuminated signs ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

12.0 Advance signage ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

13.0 Signs on vehicles in rural areas (fields) ……………………………………………………………………… 17

14.0 Enforcement – unauthorised advertisements …………………………………………………………… 17

15.0 Acting on breaches of advertisement control ……………………………………………………………. 18

16.0 Appendix A – Definition …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

17.0 Appendix B – Applying for Advertising Consent ………………………………………………...... 21

i 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Advertising and signage are important to the viability of commercial enterprises and to the health of the local economy. It can be informative and, when well designed and sited, can add interest and vitality to an area. As well as having the practical purpose of providing information about businesses, goods, events and other matters, its presence is often a great influence on the appearance of that location as seen by the passer-by. However a proliferation of signs and advertisements of different sizes, colours, design etc. can create a cluttered appearance with no visual cohesion which may be damaging to the appearance of buildings, streets or areas. Moreover, because advertisement only works where it can be clearly seen, a clutter of signs may simply cause confusion, defeating its purpose and potentially impacting on public safety.

1.2 The overall design of individual advertisements, their size, what they are made of, whether they are illuminated, the type of building they are on, their position on the building, the appearance of surrounding buildings and their cumulative effect, are all important factors in the impact of a single advertisement on the street scene. A particular design may be appropriate in one location, on a particular building, but the same design may appear discordant on a different building or in a different place.

1.3 Argyll and Bute Council is principally concerned with ensuring that all outdoor advertising is of high quality, well suited to the building or street for which it is proposed and makes a positive contribution to the appearance and character of an area.

1.4 In general terms, the quality of advertisements depends primarily on whether they show concern for the buildings and the areas which they affect and, through this, respect for the public to whom they are directed. An advertisement can be visually good or bad irrespective of how much it costs and regardless of whether the firm or product it advertises is big, small, long established, new, traditional, modern, expensive or cheap. A building can easily be spoiled by the poorly designed or insensitively displayed sign or advertisement, or by a choice of advertisement materials, colour proportion or illumination which is alien to the building’s design or fabric.

1.5 Under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the council has control over outdoor advertising in the interests of ‘Amenity’ and ‘Public safety’. Decisions can only be made on these grounds but can take into account policy in the council’s local development plan. In determining the acceptability of an advertisement display, each case will be assessed against its impact on:

- Amenity –The term ‘amenity’ covers the effect of advertising on the appearance of a building or group of buildings and on visual or aural amenity in the locality where the advertisement is to be displayed. Attention will be paid to ensure that advertisements, either individually or cumulatively, are not damaging to the character and appearance of individual buildings, streets or areas.

1 - Public safety – The term ‘public safety’ refers to the potential impact of commercial advertising on transport and traffic (including pedestrians). Attention will be paid to the potential impact of the advertisement upon pedestrian and vehicular safety in terms of them being distracting, confusing, hazardous or dangerous.

All forms of sign, notice, or other device intended to announce or advertise something or somewhere are covered by the definition of an advertisement; for a full definition please see Appendix A.

2.0 DESIGNING YOUR SIGN OR ADVERT

2.1 When considering your sign or advert design think about the following – as these are the factors the Council shall also be reviewing:-

 Size  Design  Colour  Materials  Lettering, including text and font size  Illumination  Means of fixture  Location  Overall impact, individually and cumulatively with existing advertisements  Pedestrian and road safety  Visual impact on landscape and townscape

2.2 Argyll and Bute Council will seek to ensure that advertisements and signs are kept to a minimum and that they relate well to the function and use of the building or structure on which they are displayed. All advertisements should be carefully designed so that the appearance and character of the locality or area in which they are situated is preserved. The size of any sign should be proportionate to the scale of the building or structure to which it is fixed. The presence of existing poorly located or designed advertisements will not be considered to set a precedent for others in the area.

2.3 Careful considerations will be made in the interest of Public safety, Argyll and Bute Council will not permit any advertisement which:

 Obstructs the sightline of any bend, corner or road junction  Interfere with the visibility of any traffic sign or signal  Act as a distraction to drivers (text too small, too much information etc.)  Simulate official Road Authority signs in content or colour  Obstruct or cause a danger to any road or footway user

2  Cause any other hazard to public safety  Causes or exacerbates visual clutter in towns, villages and countryside zones.  Harm landscape character, built and heritage assets.

3.0 WHAT PERMISSIONS OR CONSENTS DO YOU NEED?

Is your sign located on a road?

The road is defined as the carriageway, footway and verge if located in a rural area, and the verge may extend out several metres from the carriageway.

If so then you must apply for road authority consent first

3.1 Anything which is placed on the public footway (such as A Boards) would be considered the responsibility of the Road Authority and will be individually assessed in terms of accessibility. To this end, the first step in the process is to obtain a Roads Authority Consent (sometimes referred to as a pavement licence).

Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Section 59 of the above Act states: “...nothing shall be placed or deposited in a road so as to cause an obstruction except with the Roads Authority’s consent…”

Note:

The Council is responsible for local roads within Argyll and Bute and Transport Scotland are responsible for Trunk roads. If Advertisement consent is required to place a sign on a Trunk road, contact should first be established with Transport Scotland who can be contacted here:

[email protected]

3.2 In considering an application, the Council must ensure that sufficient footway width is retained for pedestrians to move about safely and will require indemnity against liability for injury to third parties caused by the advertisement or sign. Wherever possible, licensed boards are required to be positioned in line with street furniture, flush with shop fronts or so placed to ensure straight, clear access ways.

3 3.3 It is important to note that The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (s100) makes it an offence to place anything on a public road without the consent of the Roads Authority. This includes any way over which there is a public right of access and includes the road verge, foot path, bridges or tunnels over or under which the road passes. It is an offence, under this Act, to paint, inscribe or fix upon the surface of a road or tree, traffic sign, milestone, structure or works a picture, letter, sign or other mark. Schedule 8 of the Act sets the penalty, where an offence is proven, up to level 3 of the standard scale.

3.4 Note:

Roads Authority Consent must be obtained before an application for Advertisement Consent will be considered by the Council.

Advertisement Consent 3.5 While many advertisements require express consent, certain types do not need express consent as they have ‘deemed consent’. You can check this by consulting The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984. Advertisements displayed in accordance with the advert regulations do not require planning permission. However depending on location, advertisements may also require an application for either Road Consent and or Listed Building Consent.

3.6 It should be noted that where an existing advertisement or sign is to be replaced by a new sign (for example where a new owner or business takes over the premises), the new sign will require consent unless it is covered by the relevant criteria for deemed consent.

3.7 Once granted, consent normally lasts for five years unless specified otherwise in the conditions to the consent, but the advertisement may continue to be displayed with deemed consent beyond that period unless the council has added a condition specifying immediate removal.

3.8 An application for Advertisement Consent should be made on the appropriate form (available from the Council’s web-site) here:

https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/make-planning- application

Applications can be submitted as hard copy or electronically and, in order to be valid should be accompanied by:

4 1. A scale plan that identifies the location of the site by reference to at least two named roads 2. A scale drawing that clearly identifies the proposed position where the advertisement(s) will be displayed on the building or structure. This should be at 1:50 or 1:100 scale. Where the advertisement is to project from the face of the building, a scale section drawing should be submitted to show the extent of projection. 3. Individual drawings or illustrations of the proposed advertisement(s), either to larger scale (1:10 or 1:20) or with all metric dimensions clearly marked. Where the proposed sign is a shop fascia, this should include a scale section through the fascia showing the projection of any sign, board, letters or blind box. 4. Full details, for each sign, of the proposed materials, finishes, colours, means of fixture and method and extent of illumination (where proposed).

3.9 Photographs and photomontages are not an acceptable substitute for scale drawings but they can be helpful when submitted as additional supporting information, particularly in order to show the adjoining buildings.

3.10 A flow diagram illustrating the steps required to be considered by applicants applying for Advertisement Consent is shown in Appendix B.

4.0 SIGNAGE WITHIN SETTLEMENTS

‘A’ Boards and other similar free standing structures 4.1 ‘A’ Boards are one of the most common forms of signage which occupy footways with Argyll and Bute, because of this a number of considered measures and specific criteria have been developed to address potential obstruction difficulties as well as to protect the appearance and amenity of our towns and villages.

4.2 Definition of an A-board: “An ‘A’ framed timber board, which advertises the operation or contents of business premises by being placed upon the footway outside the premises. Other erections such as ‘barrels’ or similar objects, which serve the same purpose as the above, are included in the assessment”

All ‘A’ Boards require Roads Authority Consent (sometimes referred to as a pavement licence) and planning permission as referred to Section 3 above.

4.3 As previously mentioned the Council values the contribution and positive role in which advertisements and signage can play for built-up areas, however guidelines and parameters have to be met to ensure that they do not obstruct footpaths and

5 footways, cause visual clutter or compromise road safety. To this end, all objects such as sandwich boards and signs shall –

‘A BOARD’ REQUIREMENTS

 Be positioned at the rear of the footway (closet to the shop frontage)  Only 1 A-board permitted per shop premises to prevent sign clutter  Minimum footway width of 1.8 metres required between board and carriageway  Must be located directly outside the premises the board relates to o Businesses without a frontage are not eligible for an A Board  Present no hazard to pedestrians or wheelchair users (e.g. sharp edges, protruding nails or moving or rotating signs which could injure children)  Be no more than 0.6 metres wide  Be no more than 1 metre in height  Be sufficiently stable so as not to be easily moved or blown over  Be removed when premises are closed  Not reduce visibility for road users at a junction, access or bend  Not obscure any road signs  Be covered by appropriate Public Liability Insurance  A-boards must be removed from pavement areas when the shop premises are closed  Businesses will be encouraged to group together and use ‘column-style’ signage for sign-posting and promotion wherever possible

TYPICAL ADVERTISEMENT BOARD

6 4.5 Generally there should be a minimum distance of 1.8 metres clear width between the A board and carriageway. The diagram below displays this criterion in the street context:

Minimum clear footway width 1.8 metres

A Board Public Pathway

Building Road

‘A’ Boards can be a potential hazard to the public using the footway, people with impaired vision, in wheelchairs or with prams can be particularly disadvantaged. This criteria requires ‘A’ boards and similar advertisements to be placed close to the building or property they are advertising, allowing pedestrians safe access to the footway.

7 5.0 SHOP FRONT SIGNAGE

Shopfront Guidelines 5.1 Inappropriate shopfronts in Conservation Areas for example those constructed from inappropriate materials, can detract from the character of such areas. The use of non- traditional or gimmicky style shopfronts/architecture will be discouraged in the Conservation Areas.

5.2 Original 19thC and early 20thC shopfronts should be retained and restored. There will be a presumption against removal/alteration of surviving shopfronts that contribute to the architectural quality, or historic interest of the Town Centre.

5.3 Traditional timber fascias and shopfronts should be repaired as necessary and repainted or stained as appropriate. Colour schemes should where possible reflect the traditional or vernacular patters where these exist, for example the black and white which typifies Inveraray.

5.4 Shop signs should preferably be painted onto the fascias or onto signboards on the masonry above shop windows where the original signs are likely to be found.

5.5 Signs should be contained within the fascia and not repeated on window glass.

5.6 Sign materials should be compatible with those of the historic (or modern) building.

5.7 The shopfront should not be designed in isolation from the rest of the building or adjoining frontages. The Council will seek to achieve a level of consistency in the style of shopfronts to ensure that new proposals blend in with neighbouring premises, displaying compatibility of design, materials, colours and lettering between a shop and its neighbours.

5.8 Where the same user occupies the ground floor of two buildings, taking one fascia across both frontages might destroy the individual character of the two. Two relating fascias should be installed, designed to suit each façade.

5.9 Lettering should be balanced-out on fascias to avoid overcrowding at one end and should not be oversized. If lettering is to be individually mounted it should be of good quality.

5.10 New signs should not obscure significant features of the historic building.

8 5.11 Where company signs are proposed they should be modified, where necessary, to ensure that the shop front harmonises with the character of the area and the building concerned.

5.12 If the need for externally mounted light fittings can be demonstrated they should be of unobtrusive design, size and colour, and fixed to the buildings in a manner that will not damage the building fabric.

5.13 No internally illuminated signs or plastic fascia signs will be permitted.

5.14 The Council will endeavour to negotiate improvements to shopfronts when applications are submitted for advertisement consent, listed building consent and planning permission in the Conservation Areas or Special Built Environment Areas.

5.15 All of these principles recognise that a shopfront must attract customers into a shop so a fair degree of flexibility must be exercised. Equally, a shopping area’s character and attractiveness to customers can be destroyed by inappropriate or unsympathetic design.

Projecting Signs 5.16 The use of projecting signs are considered acceptable. For example on shops that are located on narrow streets. They should not be obtrusive or restrict pedestrian or vehicular movement and should be placed on the facia board, clear of pedestrians, with a minimum clearance of 2.3 metres between the lowest edge of the sign and the footway below.

5.17 Projecting signs should be of a good design and be in proportion to the building and the fascia to which it is attached. Proliferation/clutter of signs should be avoided and a single projecting sign per building frontage will normally be the maximum acceptable.

Note: On narrow streets or where there is limited space on footways, projecting fascia signs are preferred to A-Boards.

Sunblinds/Awnings and Dutch Canopies where they are acting as advertising 5.18 The erection of sun blinds (also referred to as awnings) and canopies in Conservation Areas will generally be discouraged by the Council unless valid reasons for their introduction can be shown (e.g. to protect perishable goods from sunlight).

5.19 The following is therefore applicable for the reason of promoting good design and safeguarding the amenity of the town centre.

5.20 The Council will favour traditional flat projecting canvas sun blinds, which are hardwearing and fully retractable.

5.21 Proposals for Dutch canopies, designed with a curved profile and enclosed ends, will be discouraged on properties in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment

9 Areas and on all Listed Buildings. This is because their size, shape and projection can make them appear intrusive thus creating difficulties of integrating them into a historic town centre.

5.22 The style/design of the proposal should be sympathetic to the building and its existing features and they should be restricted to the width of the individual window. Its size should also respect the proportions of the shopfront. In all cases the bottom of the awning should be no less than 2.3 metres above the footway.

5.23 The Council will favour the use of traditional sunblind materials, such as woven materials or canvas, in preference to PVC or plastic; in neutral rather than bright colours.

6.0 ADVERTISING ON STREET FURNITURE

6.1 Street furniture within the context of this policy document, is a collective term for objects on streets and roads, including benches, bollards, post boxes, phone boxes, streetlamps, traffic lights, traffic signs, bus stops etc.

6.2 Free standing signs and signs on street furniture will not normally be accepted where they contribute to visual and physical clutter and create a hindrance to movement along the pavement or pedestrian footway.

6.3 Any advertisement or sign fixed to a lamp post or a similar road structure will require both advertisement consent and the consent of the Council as owner of the infrastructure.

6.4 The Trunk Road Authority (Transport Scotland) will not permit any advertisements or signs including banners or temporary signs to be fixed to road signs or street furniture under their jurisdiction.

7.0 ADVERTISMENTS IN CONSERVATION AREAS & ON LISTED BUILDINGS

7.1 When considering proposals for signs within conservation areas, the Council will expect signs to preserve the particular appearance and character of the conservation area in question. If well designed and sited, advertisements can make a positive contribution to commercial streets in conservation areas. Generally, those

10 conservation areas within the urban mixed use core of the town which contains significant commercial streets will be able to accommodate a wider range of signage (in terms of design, materials and illumination) than those conservation areas which are largely residential or village in character.

7.2 In the case of listed buildings and other historic buildings of merit within conservation areas, no advertisement or sign should have an adverse impact on the architectural or historic character of the building or its setting and should not, through its display or method of fixing, interrupt or obscure any architectural features of the building. Where a historic building forms part of a uniform or cohesive group, the Council will expect advertisements to reflect that uniformity or cohesiveness.

7.3 The choice between a contemporary or traditional approach to signage on historic buildings will depend upon the nature of the building’s use, the scale and architecture of the building and the character of the area. Most importantly, all advertisements should be designed and constructed to a high quality and materials and finishes should be kept simple.

7.4 Corporate styles and images can be particularly damaging to listed buildings and within conservation areas, especially where applied indiscriminately across areas. The council will therefore expect corporate styles and images to be modified where necessary to suit the building and locality. This may mean a change in design, format, size or method of illumination.

7.5 An advertisement on a listed building will require an application for listed building consent.

8.0 COMMERCIAL BANNERS

8.1 This section covers banners that are intended to form permanent advertisements on commercial properties or are fixed on other properties for commercial purposes. Banners have become an increasingly popular form of commercial advertising and in some areas banners may be suitable form of display. However, within residential and conservation areas and in the case of listed buildings, Argyll and Bute Council will be principally concerned to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and individual buildings. Listed Building Consent will be required if the banner is proposed to be fixed to a listed building (see image below). Note: permanent banners are not acceptable.

Commercial Banners Estate Agent’s Board 9.0 ESTATE AGENTS’ BOARDS

9.1 Temporary signs, announcing that a property is for sale or letting, with certain specified limits as set out in Advertisement Regulations, can generally be erected without consent. However it is fundamental that estate agent boards are only located on the premises of the location they are advertising and nowhere else. They should not be placed within the boundaries of public roads, nor attached to any street furniture or other road signs.

9.2 The Council expects estate agents to be familiar with the restrictions in the Regulations and will expect these to be fully met. If estate agent boards are found outwith the location or property which they are advertising, the Council will reserve the right to remove these under the regulations set out within the Town and Country Planning Act.

Commercial Banners This type of Estate agent board depicted to the right would not be considered acceptable as it is not located on the property which it is advertising.

10.0 OTHER TEMPORARY ADVERTISEMENTS

10.1 Temporary advertisements, either announcing special events or those of a seasonal nature, such as Christmas street displays can be common and may not require consent to be obtained provided that they are in place for no more than 28 days. As such, Argyll and Bute Council will consider these on their individual merits, taking into account the number, size, and form, period of display required, general location, and position in the street and the degree of ‘commercial’ advertising they display. Within conservation areas or in the case of advertisements located on or close to listed

12 buildings, as with any other type of advertisement, consent will normally only be granted where the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the area or building

10.2 Temporary signs concerned with construction site works are considered to be permitted development provided that they are only in place for the period of construction and removed thereafter.

11.0 ILLUMINATED SIGNS

11.1 Illumination can play a positive role in adding to the vitality of commercial areas and contributing to the evening economy. However, excessive or indiscriminate use of illumination can harm visual amenity and result in light pollution. It should therefore be confined to what is reasonably required to fulfil the purposes of the advertisement only. Illumination will generally be appropriate in commercial and mixed use areas but will be subject to more scrutiny in predominantly residential/rural areas or streets, where illumination may impact on the amenity of neighbouring property. 11.2 Because of their shape and design, internally illuminated signs remain prominent even when not illuminated and as such their use requires careful consideration. In particular, the use of standard sizings and formats in an indiscriminate fashion will be discouraged.

Note - The specific external illumination of a non-illuminated advertisement constitutes an illuminated sign for the purposes of the Regulations and this Policy.

13 11.3 Illuminated signs are generally considered to be appropriate only in the commercial centres of towns and large villages. Outwith these areas, illuminated signs should not normally be proposed unless it can be demonstrated that they are essential in relation to those premises where services are regularly provided during the hours of darkness and out with the normal business hours of 8.00am-6.00pm. The level of illumination of advertisements should not normally exceed 250 cd/m2.

11.4 Illuminated signs should not normally be proposed in areas of high townscape quality, including conservation areas and other areas such as residential areas where they could affect the general amenities of nearby residents; except where it can be demonstrated that they are essential in relation to premises where services are regularly provided during the hours of darkness and out with the normal business hours of 8.00am-6.00pm, or except where the illumination takes the form of suitably designed spotlighting, down-lighting or floodlighting of an otherwise non-illuminated sign, particularly where this is of a traditional form and style.

12.0 ADVANCE SIGNAGE

12.1 Signs and adverts located along the side of a road, can be important to advertise and promote businesses, particularly in rural areas. However, considerations have to be made to ensure that these do not impact upon road safety and distract or endanger the people who use them.

Advance Signs 12.2 The Council will not sanction advance signs for businesses within established town centres or other built-up areas. Advance signage will generally only be permitted where businesses are not on a main route, have a reliance on passing trade, are located in a by-passed or peninsular community or where advance signs would improve road safety.

Composite Advance Signs 12.3 Proposals for composite advance signs within the roads limits must be accompanied by the agreement of the Roads Authority. Where road safety or amenity considerations dictate otherwise, they should be erected out with the road boundary. Transport Scotland use the following standards for letter size, visibility and distance from road junctions for advance signage and the Council will apply the same standards where possible:

14 85%ile of approach Lettering x- Minimum Distance speeds of private height (mm) clear visibility from cars distance of junction sign (m) (m)

1 30mph to 40mph Urban Fringe 100 75 90 or Rural Village

2 40mph to 50mph Rural 125 105 90-150

3 50mph to 60mph High Standard 150 135 150-225 Rural

4 60mph to 70mph Dual 200 180 225-300 Carriageway

5 70mph speed limit Motorway Not permitted

12.4 Composite advance signs advertising a number of facilities could contain the names of individual establishments or attractions where space permits, but the emphasis should be upon indicating the services, facilities and amenities available. Wherever possible standard symbols should be used.

12.5 Composite advance signs must be constructed of durable materials and the structure should be capable of being added to and deleted from in an easy manner. Preference will be given to ladder board type signs employing a brown, olive green or black background with white lettering and symbols, but other recessive colours will be considered. The overall size of composite signs should not normally exceed 4.00 square metres and should not be more than 3.0 metres high overall. Selected locations should have a background of trees, shrubs, rising ground or buildings which

15 complement the prevailing landscape and minimize their visual impact. Lettering should be large enough to allow drivers to read the sign without significantly affecting traffic speeds and thereby creating a road safety hazard. In short, less is more.

Single Advance Signs 12.6 Where the principle of an individual advance sign is agreed, display should normally comprise of one advance sign on either side of the road junction immediately prior to the premises advertised, or prior to the premises themselves, whichever is more appropriate. A series of repetitive signs will be deemed unacceptable.

12.7 The siting criteria for individual signs is the same as in the case of composite advance signs except that the distance from the junction or facility should not normally exceed 300m having regard to the prevailing road speed and geometry, and symbols indicating facilities and amenities available should be used wherever possible.

12.8 Individual advance signs must be constructed of durable materials and preference will again be given to ladder board type structures employing the brown, olive green or black background with white lettering and symbols, but other colours will be considered. In all cases signs must be located where road safety is not compromised.

a) The overall size of individual advance signs for large commercial businesses, e.g. hotels should not normally exceed 1.0 square metre and should not normally be more than 1.5 metres in height. b) The overall size of individual advance signs for small businesses, e.g. bed and breakfast, farmhouses etc. should not exceed 750mm by 300mm.

12.9 Illumination Illumination of advance signage will only be permitted provided that it can be achieved without prejudice to road safety. External down lighting will be the preferred method of illumination and lights should be coloured to match the colour scheme of the sign.

12.10 ‘Brown’ Tourist Directional Signs Where appropriate the Roads Authority will erect road directional and information signs pertaining to facilities such as historic properties, picnic sites and other eligible tourist attractions using the ‘brown’ tourist road direction signs scheme operated in conjunction with VisitScotland. Further details can be found here:

http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/Jan15GuideToSignpostingforTourismBusinesses.pdf

Transport Scotland also provide guidance on the provision of brown tourist signage on the Trunk Road network and further details can be found here:

http://www.transport.gov.scot/sites/default/files/documents/rrd_reports/uploaded_r eports/j7818/j7818.pdf

16 13.0 SIGNS ON VEHICLES IN RURAL AREAS (FIELDS)

13.1 Advertisements displayed upon or in a vehicle/trailer normally employed as a moving vehicle on any road will not require advertisement consent. However, this exception shall not apply to advertisements displayed on any such vehicle, during any period when it is being used primarily for the purpose of displaying an advertisement. In this instance, the static vehicle would be considered to constitute a material part of the advertisement, and as such advertisement consent would have to be obtained. The Council does not support the use of advertisements placed on parked vehicles or trailers, and any applications for these would likely be refused.

14.0 ENFORCEMENT –UNAUTHORISED ADVERTS

14.1 Argyll and Bute seeks to deliver a signage strategy that balances business needs along with obligations to ensure pedestrian/traffic safety and to protect the visual appearance of our Council area.

14.2 Any advertisement that does not have the appropriate Roads / Pavement Licence or Advertisement Consent is classed as an unauthorised advert and will be dealt with in accordance with the Councils Enforcement Charter. Inaction in this field will only serve to undermine the successful implementation of the aims and objectives of the overall policy, as well as being unfair to those persons who apply for consent in the proper manner.

14.3 It is important to note than any persons who display an advertisement without the necessary consent is liable to prosecution. The Council will consider such action in cases where the unauthorised advertisement has not been voluntarily removed or

17 where a retrospective application for consent has not been received within a reasonable timescale.

14.4 If the property is a listed building, the alteration of the building by the fixing of a sign without consent is a criminal offence. In addition to prosecution proceedings, the Council can issue a ‘Listed Building Enforcement Notice’ to implement the removal of the sign.

15.0 ACTING ON UNAUTHORISED SIGNS

15.1 The Council must consider each case on its own individual merits and decide upon the most appropriate solution. Where an unauthorised advert has been identified, the Council will proceed with one or more of the following options:

Informal contact with the advert owner 15.2 This is a favoured course of action, as more formal enforcement action is only taken as a last resort. In such cases, the sign / advert owners shall be contacted via letter and advised of our new signage policy. They will be asked to either (1) voluntarily remove their unauthorised sign or (2) submit the necessary applications to have it consented. Standard application forms and guidance shall be provided.

Retrospective Application 15.3 A retrospective application (for pavement Licence and /or advertisement consent) is processed and determined like any other application. Such an application is invited on a “without prejudice basis”

Advertisement Enforcement Notice 15.4 An enforcement notice may be served by the Council where it appears to them that any advertisement has been displayed without the necessary consent, or without compliance with a condition or limitation attached to a consent. The notice is served upon the owner, lessee and occupier of the land and on any other person known to the Council to be displaying the advertisement. The notice will require specific steps to be taken, within a specified period, to restore the land to the condition it was in before the display began or to secure compliance with the condition or limitation.

15.5 In addition the notice may specify, as an alternative, steps to be taken to bring the display up to an acceptable condition. Where any of the steps required by the notice have not been taken within the specified period the Council may enter the land and take those steps and recover its expenses from the owner of lessee of the land. Any person upon whom a notice of this type is served may appeal in writing to the Scottish Ministers. The notice will have no effect until the appeal is withdrawn or determined. The siting or erection of an unauthorised advertisement is an offence, with a current maximum fine of £1000.

18 15.6 In those cases where an advertisement has been placed on Council owned land or property without consent the advertisement may be removed and destroyed. Unlike a breach of planning control, a breach of advertisement control can never become immune from enforcement action.

Advertisement Discontinuance Notice 15.7 Some advertisements may be displayed without the requirement for advertisement consent and are therefore lawful. However, where the Council consider that such an advertisement harms the amenity of the local area or causes a danger to members of the public, the Council may serve a notice requiring the discontinuance of the display of that advertisement where it is considered expedient to do so.

Removal of signs within the Roads Corridor or Pavements 15.8 Where efforts to contact the owner of adverts is unsuccessful or where a retrospective application is refused but the sign remains in situ, formal action will be undertaken. The Council and Transport Scotland also have powers under the Road Scotland (Act) 1984 to remove unauthorised adverts within the road corridor which are unauthorised. Adverts will be removed and stored at a local depot. This is the likely route of formal action in relation to A Boards.

16.0 APPENDIX A - DEFINITION

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992, states that an advertisement is:

“ “advertisement” means any word, letter, sign, placard, board, notice, awning, blind, device or representation, whether illuminated or not, in the nature of, and employed wholly or partly for the purposes of, advertisement, announcement or direction (excluding any such thing employed wholly as a memorial or as a railway signal), and includes any hoarding or similar structure or any balloon used or designed or adapted for use and anything else used, or designed or adapted principally for use, for the display of advertisements, and references to the display of advertisements shall be construed accordingly.”

19 17.0 APPENDIX B

Does the sign / advertisement need consent?

Sign can be erected Some signs may have “deemed” consent under the No Yes without express T&CP (Control of Adverts) (Scotland) Amendment

WHERE IS THE SIGN / ADVERT TO BE WHERE IS THE SIGN / ADVERT TO BE LOCATED? LOCATED? consent Regulations 1992 – check with Council

NOTE: This includes A- Where is the sign / advert to be located? Boards, Advance Signs, signs within the curtilage of premises, On a shop front On the footway / road On the roadside Banners, Pavement verge outwith settlement Cafes’ tables / chairs, displays of Goods etc. Apply to the Council On the footway within Apply to Transport for Advertisement settlement Scotland for Roads Consent Is it on a Trunk Road? Consent

Application refused Obtain Pavement Is it on a non Trunk Apply to Council Consent refused License from Roads Road? for Roads Consent Authority (Council) (Trunk Roads) Application approved Roads Authority Consent granted

Sign can be erected Apply to Council for Consent refused Advertisement Consent (£202 fee)

Application approved

Sign can be erected 21