Agenda and minutes

Venue: Main Hall, Queens Hall, Argyll Street, Dunoon

Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392 

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rory Colville, Mary-Jean Devon and Roderick McCuish.




There were no declarations of interest.



Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

Additional documents:


The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  He then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Compliance and Regulatory Manager to identify all those present who wished to speak.




Howard Young presented the application on behalf of the Head of Development and Economic Growth.


He advised that this was an application for Argyll Holidays for 40 new static caravan pitches on a site within the Camas Rainich Wood.  At the May PPSL Committee the application was continued until today’s hearing.  He advised that Members were on site today and he then referred to a power point presentation which had been before the Committee at their May meeting.  He highlighted the site in the context of the Local Development Plan and pointed out the site edged in red which related to 3.8 hectares within Camas Rainich Wood and was 500 metres long and 100 metres wide.  He then highlighted various photographs which gave various views of the site.  He advised that the original proposal was for 45 caravans and that this was reduced to 40, with the top part where the other 5 were originally proposed, now acting as an extra buffer to the development.   


He pointed out that Planning Officers were required to assess all applications in terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and against Local Development Plan polices and other material considerations.  He advised that two reports had been prepared with the report of handling including an Appendix covering an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE).  Supplementary report number 1 advised of additional representations both for and against the proposal which had been received since the May Committee along with consultee responses from Sandbank Community Council and Scottish Water.  He confirmed that in assessing the application it was considered that there were 3 key issues that needed to be addressed: the scale of the development; the impact of the development on trees and biodiversity; and the impact on the character and amenity of adjacent residential properties. 


He advised that policy LDP DM 1 indicated different scales of development for different development management zones.  He pointed out that the site was within the countryside zone where policy LDP DM 1 was in favour of small scale developments.  For caravans this would be up to 10 caravans, with medium scale over 10 and up to 50 caravans.  He confirmed that this was a medium scale development and that policy LDP DM 1 allowed for medium and large scale developments subject to an ACE which in this case was set out in Appendix B of the report of handling.  He advised Members that when they came to deliberate the application they would be required to assess the ACE and decide whether or not to support it.  He advised that supporting the ACE would not mean support for the application, but it would become a material consideration in the determination of the application.  The purpose of the ACE is to establish the capacity of the wider countryside containing the application site to successfully absorb the scale of development proposed.  It involves an assessment of landscape sensitivity to the type and scale of development being proposed and is very detailed.   He referred to the key characteristics of the ACE compartment (Hunters Holiday Village in its entirety) set out at section C of Appendix B.  The ACE concluded that the receiving landscape had the capacity to accommodate the proposed development as it was considered appropriate in nature and scale and that this was for the Committee to agree with or not.


He then referred to the second issue relating to trees and biodiversity and advised that a tree survey had identified 860 individual trees on site consisting of a mixture of plantation Scots Pine, Birch, Alder, Oak, Beech, Larch and Spruce; mostly mature and in variable condition.  The proposed development would involve the removal of 88 trees in total, 27 of which were classified as “good”, 32 “fair” and 29 “poor.  Of the 88 trees to be removed, 54 were coniferous evergreen trees (46 of which were plantation Scots Pine where 31 were under a height of 500 mm).  The proposal has been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions.  The area has been cleared of Rhododendron ponticum which was chocking the site.   Clearing the site was not about opening gaps in the woodland to allow caravans to be added.  He advised that the site was covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  He said that there were substantial weaknesses in the TPO legislation advising that there was no requirement for a landowner to maintain a TPO woodland or trees.  He advised that if there was no maintenance and a site became a health and safety risk then Health and Safety legislation would overrule unsafe trees. He advised that there were substantial benefits in trees being taken out as this allowed for regrowth and for new trees to be planted.  It is considered the development would have no impact on the woodland. 


He then referred to the character and amenity of the area and advised that the nearest property was 51 Cammesreinach Cresent which was approximately 90 metres from the site edged red.  He advised that there had been no objection from the Area Roads Officer and no objections from Scottish Water or the Flood Adviser.  He said that SNH considered the development too small to comment on.  He advised that in terms of amenity, given the separation distances, replanting and nature of the development he did not see this development having a detrimental impact on the properties to the east of the site.  As such, assessing the proposal against policies and material considerations, he advised that he considered that the scheme should be supported.  He acknowledged that there was always tension between economic development and the natural built environment.  He confirmed that he was happy to recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.


Marina Curran-Colthart  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.