Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure Services 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: 17/00041/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: West Highland Housing Association Ltd Proposal: Erection of 5 dwellinghouses (affordable housing). Site Address: Land SW of Baile Iochdrach, Lower Kilchattan, Isle of Colonsay DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of 5no. dwellings (4no. semi-detached and 1no. detached); Improvements to existing private access and public road junction; Installation of wastewater treatment plant and outfall; Installation of surface water drainage system. (ii) Other specified operations Connection to public water main. (B) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons set out below. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd – responded: 18.01.2017 – No objection Scottish Environment Protection Agency – responded: 20.01.2017 – No objection; advice provided Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – responded: 27.01.2017 – No objection subject to condition West of Scotland Archaeology Service – responded: 03.02.2017 – No objection subject to condition Council’s Flood Risk Management Officer – 06.02.2017 & 24.02.2017 – No objection subject to condition Council’s Area Roads team – responded: 06.02.2017 – No objection subject to conditions Council’s Area Environmental Health team – responded: 06.02.2017 – No objection subject to condition Colonsay Community Council – responded: 13.02.2017 – Communicated strong support from the community, with some individual concerns which were raised by constituents. These individual concerns are addressed in Section (F) below. Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer – responded: 03.02.2017 – No objection subject to conditions Crofting Commission – no response received to date (D) HISTORY: No relevant planning history (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 advert – expired: 16.02.2017 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 86 representations have been received to this application; 62 in support, 24 in objection and 2 neither supporting nor objecting. Councillor Anne Horn (3/3/17): Supportive of the affordable housing in Colonsay. SEE APPENDIX B BELOW FOR FULL LIST OF THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS (ii) Summary of issues raised: * It should be noted that the issues detailed below are only a summary of the representations which have been received and that full copies of the relevant correspondence can be viewed on the Council’s website. www.argyll- bute.gov.uk Support The vast majority of letters submitted in support of the application cited the severe lack of affordable housing on the island and the implications for the population. A declining and ageing population was cited as being the result of locals and young families who are unable to afford to stay on the island. A number of individual and personal examples of this have been provided. The biodiversity issues raised by objectors are outweighed by the need for affordable housing. The biodiversity issues raised by objectors can be successfully mitigated, as per the response from the RSPB. The loss of this small area of croft land will be mitigated by the improvements to the access to existing croft land. Newly created crofts will benefit directly from the proposed housing development. Housing has traditionally been spread all over Colonsay, the objectors’ arguments that the development is in the wrong part of the island are erroneous. The design is an appropriate mix of modern and traditional vernacular. Objection The proposed development would have an adverse impact on protected species and their habitats which would be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and the Development Plan. Species cited by objectors are: corncrake, other ground-nesting birds, slow worms, common lizards, rabbits, otters, bats Comment: This issue is explored in Appendix A, Section C below. It is recognised that the application site does contain valuable habitat and has the potential to support a range of species. However, both the RSPB and the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer are satisfied that, provided certain measures are put in place, the development will not have a significant adverse effect on these interests. The proposed development will give rise to noise and light pollution Comment: The Council’s Environmental Health team have not raised any concerns with respect to noise and light pollution. This is not an abnormal scale or type of development within the context of the area and there are no aspects of the development which are considered to give rise to noise or light pollution. Rural Opportunity Areas should not be considered to be the automatic acceptance of any and all proposals for small housing development. Development must take place on ‘appropriate sites’ in accordance with Policy LDP DM 1 of the Development Plan Comment: Rural Opportunity Areas are not considered to be the automatic acceptance of any and all proposals for small housing development. The location of the proposed development is considered to be an ‘appropriate site’ – the settlement strategy is discussed in Appendix A, Section A below. The PDA at Scalasaig is where affordable housing should be provided on Colonsay, in close proximity to services and amenities. Comment: The PDA at Scalasaig does contain a requirement for 25% affordable housing. However, the current proposal is consistent with the Development Plan and settlement strategy on its own merits. The siting and design of the buildings is inappropriate for the open, rural setting and inconsistent with the traditional design vernacular and settlement pattern in this area. The buildings will appear too prominent in the landscape and will be visually intrusive. Comment: This matter is explored in Appendix A below. It is the opinion of officers that the design of the buildings is appropriate for the location and the development can be successfully absorbed within the landscape in a manner which is consistent with the prevailing settlement pattern. The provision of road surfacing and paving is inconsistent with Argyll and Bute Council design guidance. Comment: The design guidance does seek to discourage excessive ‘urban’ features such as large areas of hard surface and paving. The proposed surfacing of the site has been kept to a minimum and is not considered to be excessive. The surface treatment of the access will be agreed prior to development commencing, small areas of concrete paving slabs have been included to provide pedestrian access to the buildings and the parking areas will consist of block paving. The areas of hard surface are accepted as being proportionate to the development and will assist in providing safe access for pedestrians, particularly those with special needs. The permission applied for indicates that widening of the existing access road and bell-mouth and the construction of a passing place are to be located on my ground and the applicants have no agreement with me to that effect. As such it will not be possible for the applicants to construct the passing places or carry out the work needed to widen the existing access road and therefore the permission as applied for cannot be granted. Comment: Whilst the land ownership situation is not a material planning consideration, the applicant’s agent has been made aware of this representation and it has been confirmed that the appropriate ownership notification has been served and certified by the applicant. The land required for the passing places has not been included within the application site but a suspensive planning condition will ensure that the work must be carried out prior to any other development commencing. The proposed development should not be built on croft land and will contribute to the continued decline of croft land in Kilchattan. Comment: The proposed development is located within a Rural Opportunity Area, wherein the Development Plan offers broad encouragement to ‘small-scale’ housing development on appropriate sites. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Development Plan in every regard. A consultation response is still awaited from the Crofting Commission and Members will be appraised separately of any response received between the compilation of this report and the meeting There is a limit of 10 houses via the only possible access road. The addition of this development will prevent further development associated with crofts accessed from this road. Comment: The current assessment has been made taking into account extant planning permissions and existing development. It is not possible to second-guess future development proposals. The current proposal can be safely accommodated, with commensurate improvements, via the access track in question. Whatever access regime might be required to serve any prospective future development would be a matter for consideration at the time of any subsequent application(s). The access track is at risk from flooding. In previous years the tide has washed over the track, leaving debris and causing it to be blocked. Comment: The access track does lie adjacent to the medium likelihood (0.5% annual probability or 1 in 200 year) flood