NORTH KNAPDALE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

Achnamara Bellanoch Cairnbaan Crinan Tayvallich

Response to the Argyll and Bute Council’s Draft Local Plan – March 2004.

Community consultation has been conducted over a six week period ending on Friday 12th

March 2004. This response is the result of dissemination of the Local Plan content by the NKCC,

through the display of Local Plan documents in public places, public meetings, Community

Councillor visits and discussions with individuals, the use of public notice boards and the receipt of written and verbal comments from members of the public.

Public Meetings have been held at Cairnbaan, Crinan and Tayvallich. In the smaller

communities of Achnamara and Bellanoch consultation has been carried out through direct contact by Community Councillors with local residents.

This response is offered under several headings as follows:

1. Main concerns from the settlements within North Knapdale.

2. General comments.

3. Content of the of draft documents and maps.

4. The presentation and ease of use of Plan information to the people of North

Knapdale.

5. Comments on the Plan proposals for each of the five settlements in North Knapdale:

Achnamara, Bellanoch, Cairnbaan, Crinan and Tayvallich.

1. Main concerns from the settlements within North Knapdale.

a. Servicing and infrastructure and, in particular, Single Track Roads are not mentioned

in the draft documents. Neither is there mention of the improvement or maintenance of

infrastructure to support the proposed development being driven by A&BC‘s economic and

social targets.

The condition of roads is of prime concern to all residents in this area, which has to be

addressed before any development or expansion can be contemplated.

b. Affordable housing is important in this area. A sustainable system needs to be found

to provide houses to be bought or rented by local people, to live in, commensurate with their

income.

c. Second homes with low levels of occupancy is an issue of great concern in view of

the high percentage of dwellings in this category and their low contribution to the local

economy.

There is a need to justify speculative development in relation to the real need for homes within

small settlements, which can be bought by working residents, at a price they can afford.

d. Large scale speculative developments are considered inappropriate and undesirable

in small, sensitive settlements. Organic / incremental growth is to be preferred.

e. The impact of inappropriate development on the environmental and heritage

resources of the area raises considerable concern.

Suggestion

There is evidence in the Draft Plan of despoiling and settlement cramming in sensitive

settlements, within National Scenic Areas, simply to meet development targets, where it is known that there will be ready demand for such development. We put to you the suggestion that new settlements or the regeneration of forestry villages may contribute to such targets without detriment to existing settlements. For example, new settlements on Forestry Commission land with purpose built roads and services, in line with the current FC Consultation Paper "Review of Land Managed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland".

2. General Comments.

a. The North Knapdale Community Council Area settlements lie in the heart of the

Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA). The area is a mosaic of rich conservation sites of

local, National, European and potentially World designation and importance, and sites of

historic importance.

b. Eco-tourism, which we have here in abundance in North Knapdale, is the driver for

growth to which this Draft Plan aspires.

c. We draw your attention to the all of the Structure Plan Development control Policies

1-10, and in particular, paragraph. 4.16 which states: "National Scenic Areas contain scarce

and highly valuable landscapes which are of National significance. These National Scenic

areas, therefore, require particularly careful consideration and added protection. This is the

basis of STRAT DC 8"

STRAT DC 8:

A) "Development which, by reason of location, siting, scale, form, design or cumulative impact damages or undermines the key environmental features of a visually contained or wider landscape or coastscape shall be treated as "non sustainable" and is contrary to this policy. Outwith the National Park particularly important and vulnerable landscapes in Argyll & Bute are those associated with:

1. National Scenic Areas.

2. Historic Landscapes and their settings with close links with archaeological and built heritage and/or historic gardens and designed landscapes.

3. Landward and coastal areas with semi-wilderness or isolated or panoramic quality.

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

d. Developments of the settlements within the Knapdale NSA should respect STRAT DC 8 and, as such, have this recognition and designation indicated throughout theSettlement Areas and Boundaries Tables of P/DCZ 1 in the Plan Document 1.

e. We consider Table 2 to be a particularly arbitrary list of settlements quoted in the glossary as: (generally with population over 150 on the mainland and 100 on the islands, but not exceeding 3000). The population headcount is taken as the sole deciding factor, without regard to local geography and circumstances.

f. The Structure Plan para. 3.8 gave no indication that the small and highly sensitive settlements of Argyll and Bute would be linked so arbitrarily with Key Settlements. Small and sensitive settlements should not be included in Table 2. A separate table or other definition should be required for "sensitive settlements" In its present form Table 2 requires justification.

PAN 19 para. 12: "Plans should be Relevant and Realistic, Positive and Practical, Clear and Concise." And should (para. 7) "provide a clear vision for our area", where local communities "gain a sense of ‘owning’ the Plan, or the relevance of its policies to their needs."

While it is understood that the presentation of this Draft Plan was intended to be radical

compared with the current Local Plan with the purpose of "highlighting" all possibilities for

more detailed investigation during the Plan period. This being so, it is essential that all

future proposals are fully consulted and justified.

3. Content of the Draft documents and maps.

a. Maps are incomplete, unclear and inaccurate in parts.

(1) Maps are not the most recent maps available and not all dwellings or changes are shown.

(2) The Constraints and Conservation maps show only local or UK designated sites. No features are named. Heritage and archaeological sites are not shown.

(3) It is considered necessary that all designated sites and features are shown, identifies and indexed on maps, e.g. European, National and Regional Scenic Areas and Coasts, Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest, Ancient Monuments and Sites of Archaeological Importance, Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas.

Document 2, 2.32: STRAT DC 8 is carried over in full into this Local Plan. The locations of National Scenic Areas, Historic Landscapes, Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes which are referred to in STRAT DC 8 are shown in the proposed map folders". The draft maps do not show all of the above features, or give any detail about them.

(4) There are several PDAs which overlap designated sites.

(5) The proposed settlement boundaries are expansive and inaccurate. In some cases they increase the settlement area by more than 200%, and this should be justified.

(6) Existing settlement boundaries should be shown for comparison and clarity.

(7) The foreshore between high and low water marks is included in the settlement boundaries. These should be differentiated by colour from the settlement areas to avoid over-representing the actual settlement areas. (Ref: DOC 2 para. 2.34 and E4).

(8) There should be greater colour contrast between the green Rural Opportunity Areas and Sensitive Areas, and between the pinks representing Proposed Settlement Areas and Potential Development Areas.

b. The Supplementary Information and Guidance Notes are still not available so we cannot be certain that our comments are as informed as they should be. PAN 49 annex 3 para. 2 states that "supplementary guidance should not be used to introduce new elements".

c. There is no information or worked example of an Area Capacity Evaluation. Therefore it is not possible to know how applications will be dealt with, having regard to housing density on each PDA.

d. Compatibility with the Structure Plan. SPP1 38 and PAN 49 require that Local Plan conforms to the Structure Plan, yet there are several references in the Draft Plan documents of the need to alter the Structure Plan to meet the needs of the Local Plan!

e. There is a need to justify the Settlement Table and Boundaries Plan (Doc 1 P/DCZ 1, Table 2) in relation to the Structure Plan para 3.8, in relation to Key Settlements and the diversity of the settlements included in this table.

f. Current Plan Policy POL RUR 1 has not been carried over strongly enough. Many sites and designations proposed appear to be in conflict with present legislation.

g. Housing Policy is too permissive particularly in the NSA with a "presumption in favour" rather than a "need to justify". This is at odds with landscape, environmental, historical and coastal policies.

h. Special Built Environment Zones and their method of zoning are not defined.

i. Areas for Action and other designations, once designated, may be vulnerable to a "change of use" for a purpose other than that for which the area was first designated. These areas should revert to "no status" if the designated purpose is not executed.

j. Rural Opportunity Areas have insufficient detail to assess how they will be dealt with in relation to Capacity Evaluation in Sensitive countryside. There are ROAs indicated in places between the road and the sea or fresh water, in direct contravention of DOC 1 1.18 . They also contravene National and European conservation designations not shown on the Draft Plan maps.

k. Rural Opportunity Areas within the National Scenic Area should be classified as Sensitive Countryside with a need to justify development rather than a presumption to build.

l. There is a lack of information on the proposed use and potential capacity of Potential Development Areas. They should be designated for residential, commercial, industrial, community or conservation use at the outset.

(1) There is no indication about their technical suitability for building or any other

purpose,

(2) The timescale for development, or

(3) The type of development envisaged.

m. Some Potential Development Areas in the North Knapdale Scenic Area are in conflict with strategic policies such as STRAT DC 8 and STRAT DC 9, Schedules E7, E10 and SPP7(2004).

n. Areas of Search are defined in boundary only with no detail as to their purpose. This

rests uneasily with the public.

4. The presentation and ease of use of Plan information to the people of North Knapdale.

a. Argyll and Bute Council (A&BC) has, to a large extent, abrogated its responsibility for

the dissemination of the Plan content, policies and objectives to individuals in the

community. In some areas there will have been incomplete public consultation which, in

itself, is at odds with the stated objectives of local involvement and ownership of the adopted

Plan. There is widespread concern that public consultation has come as an afterthought,

has been a low priority and appears not to be really wanted by the Council.

b. Supplementary Information and Guidance Notes are still not available at the end of

the consultation period. Without these it is impossible to give a complete and fully informed

response.

c. Insufficient copies of the Plan and documents were made available at the start of the

consultation period.

d. There is widespread feeling that there was excessive use of planning jargon

throughout the Draft Plan. Maps and plans need to be clear, concise and unambiguous.

e. Cross-referencing between maps and documents using the CDs has been found to

be difficult.

f. Response forms were not available at the officially designated locations until half way

through the consultation period.

g. The designated public viewing places for Plan documents in Lochgilphead were

inadequate and not conducive to the assimilation of these substantial documents.

h. Condensed versions of the Plan, specific to the individual settlements, and supplied

to individual households would have been desirable and must be considered for later

consultations.

i. There have been no explanatory meetings offered by A&BC for the General public.

j. Meetings for Community Councillors were held at the end of the consultation period

including one such meeting in Ardrishaig on Monday 8th March 2004 which was called at a

few days notice. Although helpful, these meetings would have been very much more

beneficial had they been held prior to the consultation period to give Community Councillors

a head start on the Plan policies and consultation process which was about to commence.

k. The public consultation period, although meeting statutory requirements, has been

too short for such an extensive and radical Plan. This has been exacerbated by the lack of

prior warning and insufficient explanation of the Plan detail to the public and Community

Councils, before the circulation of the draft Plan. It has involved considerable time, effort

and cost incurred by Community Councils, without the opportunity to prepare for the

dissemination of the content of the Plan. There is no doubt that the consultation has to be

deemed as incomplete. There has been insufficient time to canvas public opinion on the

final content of the Community Council’s response.

Pauline James

Honorary Chair North Knapdale Community Council.

11 March 2004

1. Justify the designation "Tayvallich including Carsaig". Tayvallich and Carsaig are two separate settlements yet they have been designated a single settlement in the draft plan.

Coalescence has been vigorously resisted by planners and residents alike and is to be avoided.

See PAN 36 paragraph2.

This step brings the population conveniently above the threshold required to redefine the settlement of Tayvallich as a "Small town and Village" rather than a "Minor Settlement" or "Sensitive Settlement" as is its present designation. Indicating that considerable development is likely. This designation makes the potential for unsuitable, inappropriate, medium, even large scale investment led development (6-30 houses or more) a real possibility.

See also PAN 36.paragraphs 12 and 13.

The 150 population threshold between Small Towns and Villages and Minor Settlements is thought to be arbitrary, having no regard to local geography and an unsatisfactory way to assess

settlements. Justification of this is required.

2. A sewerage system is needed to improve the quality of water in Tayvallich Bay, a busy

Recreational bay. It is considered a necessity prior to further development and would be seen as a community gain.

3. There is no mention of the upkeep or improvement to the single track road into Tayvallich

which is essential for the existing resident population, before any further expansion. Indeed there is no reference to single track roads anywhere in the proposal documents.

4. Community Council consultation input to this draft plan has largely been ignored.

5. Incremental / organic growth is the community preference.

6. PDAs on Tayvallich Estates, and therefore possibly elsewhere, have been drawn without

regard to designated conservation sites.

7. The gross area of PDAs in the community is huge in the context of the district notional

targets in relation to the Council’s total housing target. The 2003-2007 target having already been fulfilled by H-AL12/17, ahead of public consultation of this Draft. The settlements of Tayvallich and Carsaig having incrementally supplied 200% to housing figures in excess of the current Local Plan allocation of 1993.

8. The organic growth of a settlement must be taken into account in A&BC target figures.

There remains a need for Affordable/Social Housing in Tayvallich. The H-AL12/17 consent for 6

houses last year, which was consulted and approved on the basis that it would fulfil this need, with the endorsement of the officer of the Statutory Planning Unit, has back-fired on Argyll and Bute Council. It is now expected to add to the higher value rental or second home stock, which presently stands at 40%.

9. Sustainable Low Cost/Social Housing. There may be an opportunity for a further attempt on

a portion of land, identified in this draft plan as PDA 12/42 (part) belonging to a local landowner,

Tayvallich Estates. This is under active consideration. Provided that safeguards of sustainability

can be put in place to avoid this further opportunity being squandered.

10. There is a strong view that absentee overseas investment landowners may be motivated by

the Plan to exploit the development potential of their land to extremes, having an investment return priority over community and social responsibility. The Plan should be written to regulate this to ensure that it is the Community that "own" and "gain" from the Plan, not remote, business driven enterprise.

11. Careless rumour/talk of ‘in excess of 40 more dwellings not being noticed in Tayvallich’

makes the community question the driving force behind some PDA designations.

12. Areas For Action AFA12/9 new school site is on a floodplain and washland see SPP7

Planning and Flooding Directive. We highlight para. 44 which clearly mentions schools, and

para.52. the need

"to consider flooding issues properly especially in the light of climatic change predictions, and so prevent additional land and development being put at risk from flooding".

a. Development in the school intake area has doubled in the last 25 years, but the school roll remains around the 20 mark.

b. AFA 12/9 adjoins an SSSI designated site.

c. This AFA is generally regarded as "nonsense", "not practical, realistic or relevant".

13. Area For Action, once designated for a specific purpose, such as a new school, may be

vulnerable to a ‘Change of Use’ for a purpose other than that for which the AFA was designated. It should be written into the new Local Plan that any such area should revert to "no status" if the

designated use does not come to fruition.

• PDA 12/40: This includes most of the remaining improved, agricultural grazing land of

Carsaig Estate lying between the two settlements of Tayvallich and Carsaig. It is very large

in the context of actual housing need and could accommodate a large and very undesirable

housing scheme. It would be totally out of character with PAN 36 "Siting and Design of New

Houses in the Countryside" and contrary to the ethos of consultation PAN 49 "Local

Planning" as present development alongside appears to be taking for granted this inclusion

in the Final Plan.

• The Area to the west is the feeder to the flood plain and also represent the sole remaining

natural break between the settlements of Tayvallich and Carsaig which has been considered

sufficiently important by planners to highlight and identify in recent planning applications.

• It is the remaining wild life and wet land corridor and an area of rare nesting birds plants that

could be of economic benefit and significance to the area if it were encouraged, as has been

suggested, as a Watermeadow, a community ‘gain.’ The community will need time to

consider this.

• It is the Community preference for most of PDA 12/40 to be excluded from the Local Plan.

• PDA 12/41: Piecemeal intrusion on the floodplain, abuts a SSSI site, low lying subject to the

same problems encountered across the road with a need for substantial unsightly infill.

Community Rejection.

• PDA 12/42: Revised in shape and size but the remainder is seen as a potential social

housing site with some modification of boundaries to take account of conservation status

and necessary farm grassland. Community Approval.

• PDA 12/43: Includes some areas of designated SAC (Special Area of Conservation),

otherwise Community Approval.

• PDA 12/44: Seen as important agricultural land by the owning Estate who will be making

direct representations. Community Neutral.

• PDA 12/45: Was zoned in the previous plan Thought to possibly retain Croft status.

Community Approval.

• PDA 12/46: A considerable portion is wetland, partially technically unsuitable. Access

issues. Community Approval.

• PDA 12/47: Seems logical. Community Approval.

• PDA 12/48: Was zoned in previous plan. Obvious difficulties over private road access and

road adoption issues. Community Approval.

• PDA 12/49: Noted neighbour objection, previous planning refusal, coastal location, and

present use, otherwise considered logical if not over developed, and visually discreet.

Possible difficulties over private road access and road adoption issues. Community

Approval.

• PDA 12/50: Mixed area with significant percentage of technically difficult land to develop.

Not seen by owner as serious opportunity in his lifetime. Seen as too large in the Carsaig

context. Community Neutral.

• PDA 12/51: Current caravan site likely to remain with peripheral residential interest.

Community Approval.

• PDA 12/52: Southern finger to be designated solely for possible use as a designated

sewage treatment site. Remainder of area excluded. Community Approval.

1. AOSs: – General lack of understanding over real future intentions for these sites.

2. H-AL 12/17 Already allocated, and being developed, ahead of consultation, for 6 houses to

meet A&BC target figures for 2003-2007. A need, in future, to also recognise ‘organic’ settlement growth in target figures.

3. AFA 12/8: (Current School & Playing Field): The need for separation of land over which a

Deed of Covenant exists for perpetual use as community recreational land, including play park,

playing field and land around the village hall. Size reduced to existing school only. Any funding

under AFA available, to be applied to refurbishment in the existing location.

4. AFA 12/9 (New School Site). Concern over actual need for a relocation of the school from

the existing site. Strong concern over suitability of site for a school due to functional flood plain

status – "washland". Concern over ultimate "change of use" as further residential development land if school proposal is abandoned. Further comment see earlier in the response.

5. Open Space Protection Area. Community Jubilee Green to be recognised and indicated on

the foreshore at Tayvallich. Community Recreation area to be recognised and indicated in the plan allocated area AFA 12/8. Open Space Protection Areas both welcome at Carsaig Bay and

Tayvallich Bay.

11 March 2004

Cairnbaan

The designation of Cairnbaan in relation to Table 2 of P/DCZ 1 ‘The Settlements Areas and

Boundaries’ must be justified. The arbitrary head count of "a population over 150" being the

sole deciding factor to become listed in Table 2, is an eclectic table of Small Towns and

Villages which will support medium scale development, between 6-30 dwelling units

inclusively, (and possibly large scale development). This is considered unsatisfactory. There

should be other or additional definition.

Cairnbaan lies within the Knapdale National Scenic Area and is regarded in Document1 as

an "important village". This should be reflected in the Table designations to be in keeping

with The Structure Plan Policies 4.16 which states:

 "National scenic areas contain scarce and highly valuable landscapes which are of national Significance. These National Scenic Areas, therefore, require particularly careful consideration and added protection. This is the basis of STRAT DC 8 see A) 1. National Scenic Areas."

Cairnbaan lies along the Crinan Canal, a Conservation area of real importance to the Eco

Tourism aims of Argyll and Bute Council and should be so recognised by this Draft Plan.

Conservation status appears to have no teeth when planning applications are considered.

Justify the proposed very extended settlement boundary in relation to the existing settlement

boundary.

Retain some open space areas.

2. Roads.

It is noted there is no mention of road improvements or maintenance in the Draft Documents.

The numerous development proposals, both in Cairnbaan and in those settlements beyond,

are all served by the B841 which will involve a huge increase in construction, servicing and

resident traffic, along the B841, through the centre of Cairnbaan.

Present road maintenance is poor and issues need to be resolved before development.

Road Safety the B841 is not wide enough for large vehicles to pass safely without mounting

the verge or roadside ditch.

Speed restrictions should be in force particularly along the section from Creag Ghlas to the

junction of the A816 Oban trunk road.

Safety Measures should be reviewed at the joining of the A816 Oban trunk road and the

B841, at the entrance to North Knapdale. This has been considered in the past. This could

be an Area for Action.

The north canal bank road. A speed restriction is necessary.

Further development on the North bank of the canal is not considered to be desirable

because of the pressure it would put on -

a). The very narrow canal side road and

b). The canal walls themselves.

c). The Conservation status.

Medium and large scale, urban like development is not in character with the landscape

capacity or indeed National Scenic Areas or the essence of Conservation and the

community does not welcome this.

The more development along the south side of the canal, and to the settlements beyond, the

more the need for road safety measures and precautions.

Any further dense development on the south side of the canal will be highly visible. and likely

to be a disappointment to tourists.

4. Flooding.

There are very serious concerns regarding flooding that has occurred at the new

development at Creag Ghlas which needs addressing.

The idea that a dense development of 20 houses is allocated behind Creag Ghlas, on the

hillside, is worrying.

The Council need to think long and hard in relation to any development that could redirect

the water course or exacerbate the current on going, unresolved problem at Creag Ghlas.

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP 7) "Policy Content Sustainable Development and Social

Justice" Paragraph 3.

 "Communities should be free from the threat of flooding" "New development should aim to be in harmony with the water environment and not attempt to work against it". and the "Introduction" paragraph1."Climate change is expected to worsenthe situation".

This is recognised as a need in Cairnbaan and in other small settlements. A sustainable

system needs to be found to provide housing to be bought or rented, by local people, to live

in, at a price they can afford.

The second home housing stock that is little occupied, and new development able to be

snapped up by people with incomes above the local average wage of this area, in relation to

the second home low contribution to the local economy, causes concern.

a) PDA 12/20 No specific comment Some people prefer the idea of similar style of single

layer development alongside the canal bank, as along the North side of the canal.

b) PDA 12/21 No specific comment. Though small scale development is preferred, not

medium to large scale development.

c) PDA 12/22 No support for further development along the North Bank of the canal for

reasons stated earlier in the response.

d) PDA.12/23 Is this housing or boat/canal orientated? If dwellings, it should be

sympathetically in character with the approach to the Knapdale National Scenic Area the

Crinan Canal Conservation area. No medium to large scale urban schemes, otherwise it will

be in danger of looking like an extension to Lochgilphead.

e) H-AL 12/8 The Problem of flooding as mentioned earlier, MUST be assessed as to how

this will affect the dwellings at Creag Glas already built below ( see SPP 7). This Allocation

is considered to be a foregone conclusion not a consultation. A dense block housing scheme

of 20 dwellings, and more, will be very eye catching.

Perhaps this target allocation, if there has to be one, could be divided between the various

PDAs.

It presently appears the intention, to have a solid block of development ultimately, which will

include the Area of Search along side.

f) The Area of Search, AOS, indicated, appears to indicate a long term block development,

joining the whole of the North side of the Canal.

g) AFA 12/6 The body of opinion was that this should remain as a genuine piece of rural

Argyll !! This was the ‘gathering’ area in droving days.

AFA 12/6 is persisted with, the Community should have a ‘say’ in any proposals.

There should be no ‘Change of Use’ of an area to something different from the allocated

designation.

h) AFA 12/7 An eco-tourist area would be welcome BUT parking and access were of

concern, such that they be on the opposite, South side, of the canal and access is on foot

across the canal

The road on the north side of the canal, with access at the Cairnbaan Hotel, not to be the

vehicular access for any such project, even during preparation.

11 March 2004