Agenda item

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report.  Planning permission in principle is sought for the erection of a single dwellinghouse and installation of a septic tank.  The site for the proposed dwellinghouse is located within the minor settlement boundary of Coulport/Letter.  The proposal also includes the formation of a new access to serve the proposed dwellinghouse.  The majority of this new access is out with the settlement boundary and is located within the countryside zone.  The site is also located within the MOD safeguarding zone of Coulport.  

The proposed site is located on the seaward side of the main road (B833) opposite an existing dwelling know as Ruanda.  All development within the minor settlement boundary of Coulport/Letter is located exclusively on the landward side of the main road and there is no existing development to the seaward side of the road within the settlement boundary.  It is considered that the proposals do not constitute an appropriate site within the settlement zone, because they do not relate to this established settlement pattern of Coulport/Letter.

It is recognised that there is development on the seaward side of the main road in nearby neighbouring Ardpeaton.  This development is either historical or is re-development on brownfield sites and is not on a greenfield site.  The application site is a greenfield site, considered to be natural foreshore and can be described as a mature aged broadleaved woodland with areas of wet woodland within it. 

There have been 26 objections to this proposal received and one representation along with objections from Cove and Kilcreggan Community Council and the Development Policy Unit.  There have been no objections from other consultees, subject to conditions.

The proposal was assessed against policies of the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2015, National Planning Framework 4 and LDP2, as detailed at section P of the report and it was recommended that planning permission in principle be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of handling.

Decision

The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission in principle for the reasons detailed below:

1.    LDP DM1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of development within key settlements on appropriate sites and within the countryside zone on appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites and changes of use of existing buildings. There is a presumption against development that seeks to extend an existing settlement into the Countryside Zone. With regard to LDP DM1 the proposal includes an area of settlement zone and countryside zone, the proposal does not constitute an appropriate site within the settlement zone, because it does not relate to the established settlement pattern at Coulport/Letter, where built development is located exclusively on the landward side of the road.  The proposed access to the development is located within the countryside zone and therefore does not accord with part E of LDP DM1. In addition, it would not be supported by LDP2 Policy 01 in relation to settlement areas and Policy 02 out with settlement areas which is a material consideration. In relation to Policy 01 – Settlement Areas, development will normally be acceptable where it is an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. In this regard the proposal does not constitute an appropriate site within the settlement zone, because the proposal does not relate to the established settlement pattern at Coulport/Letter, and results in the development of a section of natural foreshore in a village where built development is located exclusively on the landward side of the road. Regarding Policy 02, the proposal would not constitute as infill, rounding off, redevelopment or located on a previously developed site and is therefore not generally supported. Policy 02 further notes that development adjacent to, but out with settlement boundaries which are delineated in the proposals maps will not constitute infill, rounding off or redevelopment.

In addition, whilst it is believed that the site could accommodate a modest sized dwelling, it has not been demonstrated that there would be sufficient land for the required amenity space including; garden, parking and turning area.

As the proposed development fails to pay regard to the established settlement pattern in this location it is also considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 14. Furthermore, based on the above the proposals would also be contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 9 and the Supplementary Guidance Sustainable Siting and Design Principles (paras 4.1 and 4.2) and proposed LDP polices 05, 08 & 10 which are a material consideration.

2.    Policy 9 of NPF4 does not support greenfield sites unless the site is allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. Given the house is not supported by the settlement strategy policies within the adopted LDP (as explained in point 1), then the proposal is also contrary to Policy 9 of NPF4.

3.    It is considered that the proposed development is contrary to NPF4 Policy 1 & 3 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3, SG LDP ENV 1, 6 & 14 and Proposed LDP2 Policy 73 given the disturbance to biodiversity is not acceptable. The construction of a house and access would result in the loss of ground flora and fauna and individual mature trees within an established native woodland and the potential impacts on protected species.

4.    The proposal would be contrary to NPF4 Policy 6 part b) which notes that proposals will not be supported where they result in adverse impacts on native woodlands including individual trees of high biodiversity value or fragmenting woodland habitats. In regard to potentially fragmenting woodland habitats, the preliminary ecological appraisal has noted the site has good connectivity to further Ancient Woodland Inventory and to the Local Nature Conservation Site at Peaton Glen. Also of relevance is SG LDP ENV 6, which places importance on development impact on trees / woodland whereby Argyll and Bute Council will resist development likely to have an adverse impact on trees by ensuring through the development management process that adequate provision is made for the preservation of woodland/trees. Policy 77 of the proposed LDP notes that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland resources. Particular care will be taken to ensure that ancient semi-natural woodland, native or long-established woods and individual trees of high nature conservation value are safeguarded, conserved and, where possible, enhanced. Removal of woodland resources will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits.  As noted above the adverse impacts on native woodland and individual mature trees of biodiversity value would be contrary to NPF4 Policy 6, SG LDP ENV 6 as well as Proposed LDP Policy 77 which is a material consideration.

5.    NPF4 Policy 10 seeks to protect coastal communities and assets and support resilience to the impacts of climate change, part B) notes; Development proposals in undeveloped coastal areas will only be supported where they are necessary to support the blue economy, net zero emissions or to contribute to the economy or wellbeing of communities whose livelihood depend on marine or coastal activities, or is for essential infrastructure, where there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site. In addition, policy SG LDP CST 1 (Coastal Development) notes that the preferred location for developments requiring a coastal location is the Developed Coast, which consists of coastal areas within the Settlement Development Management Zone, excluding the Natural Foreshore. This proposed site is a Natural Foreshore where there is a presumption against development unless there is a specific operational need; and ii) there is no effective alternative location for the development landward of the natural foreshore; and iii) the development does not damage or undermine the key features of the natural foreshore area. As the proposal for a single dwelling house fails to demonstrate compliance with the above criterial the proposal would also be contrary to SG LDP CST 1. Furthermore, as this proposal for a single dwelling is located within an undeveloped coastal area it would also be contrary to NPF4 Policy 10.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 November 2023, submitted)