15-space church car park at The Manse Church Road, Luss, Alexandria

What was proposed

The application proposed a 15-vehicle car park, a new wall opening, removal of portacabins, landscaping, cycle parking and future electric-vehicle ducting.

“Figure 11 Listed boundary wall (application site western boundary) 3.17. The wall is comprised of local stone and is described in the listing as “a high rubble wall with slab coping”. Whilst the northern part of the wall adjoins private rear gardens and is not in public view, its eastern and western extents are both clearly visible from Church Road. The length of the wall on Church Road that comprises the western boundary of the application site is c. 31.5m in length.”

“Figure 13 Extract from Proposed Site Plan 2024_0074-02 Rev B 3.24. The wall would be carefully dismantled by hand to create the opening with the removed stone salvaged and reused to make good the wall ends using appropriate laying method and lime mortar. The details of this are to be considered as part of the parallel Listed Building Consent application. 3.25.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was part of the Manse walled garden near the church, beside shops, community buildings and homes, with a listed boundary wall and existing portacabins.

“Figure 2 The Manse – present car parking area 3.3. Both the Manse and Luss Parish Church are owned by the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland's Clyde Presbytery Plan (2023) 1 , which was mandated by the Church of Scotland and developed by Clyde Presbytery, aims among other things, to address financial pressures and a surplus of ageing buildings. The plan requires the sale of the Manse (along with the adjacent Pilgrimage Centre) by the end of 2026.”

“Figure 4 Aerial view of application site and surroundings 3.9. To the immediate north of the application site is Luss General Store and Gift Shop. To the immediate west is Luss Distillery, the telephone exchange and Luss Village Hall. The application site is bounded by the listed wall on its north and west sides. The southern boundary abuts a residential property known as Manse Cottage (which is also owned by the Church of Scotland).”

Officer report

Earlier site history

There were no relevant planning applications, while the portacabins had remained without permission for more than 16 years and were immune from enforcement.

“Figure 14 Superseded site plan Planning History 3.27. There are no historical planning applications of relevance relating to this site. The portacabins were brought to the site historically without the requisite planning permission. These have remained at the site for more than 16 years and are immune from planning enforcement. Environmental Impact Assessment & Habitat Regulations Appraisal 4.1.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the replacement parking would support church access and community use, while heritage, amenity, ecology and road risks were considered manageable overall.

“In view of the nature of the road safety risk in this case being low and given the desirability of the enhancement to the Outstanding Conservation Area, the effective re-use of land, the desirability of supporting community facilities, equal access opportunities and the health and wellbeing of the community at large, as well as noting the strength of public support, it is considered on balance that there is adequate justification to recommend approval in this case,…”

“In heritage terms, the proposed opening would cause some harm through the loss of historic fabric from the listed boundary wall. However, that harm is moderated by the removal of the unsightly portacabins, the improved setting of the wall, and enhancement to the character and appearance of this part of the Outstanding Conservation Area. On balance, the heritage impacts are considered acceptable. 8.53.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Road officers objected over visibility, layout and safety; the community council reached no position, while archaeology consultees had no objection subject to conditions.

“(AA) must be carried out. This process is known as Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). An AA is not required in this case as the proposed development would not be near to/impact upon any European sites. Consultations and representations Responses to consultations Argyll & Bute Roads Authority 5.1. Objection on the grounds of insufficient visibility, road layout not being acceptable and impact on road safety.”

“The private access should be widened out to 5.5m for the first 10m. Gradients must be no more than 5% over the first 10 metres from the edge of the public road. Away from the public road interface, maximum gradients must not exceed 8%. Access to be formed or drained to prevent surface water discharge to public road. Disabled car parking provision should also be considered. The proposal will require a Section 56 Road Opening Permit. Luss Community Council 5.2.”

Officer report

Support and objections

Supporters described the parking as essential and close to the church, while objectors questioned its need and raised traffic, safety, disturbance and amenity concerns.

“The proposal does not create significant additional parking capacity; it simply moves existing church parking from one part of church property to another. It will not increase traffic or car presence in the village. There is very little through‑traffic in this part of the village, and it is one‑directional, reducing potential traffic concerns. Parked cars will be largely hidden behind the boundary wall, reducing visual impact.”

“Luss Church is vital to the local community. It is essential that a new car park is created close by for the exclusive use of the Church for its continued operation as a place of worship. The following is a summary of the representations in objection: • This proposal undermines 10+ years of community work to obtain Traffic Regulation Orders to stop non‑residents parking in the village core.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative spoke in support, and a representative of Luss and Arden Community Council spoke against the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed ownership, public parking, the wall, community facilities, access, road requirements, disabled spaces, use of the site and possible future changes.

“Questions from Members followed and focused on: - Asset Management and ownership - Situation of public car park - Loss of part of the surrounding stone wall - Community facilities - Planning balance in determining a decision - Portacabins on site - Gate of the Church -opening and closing times - Regulations of Argyll & Bute Council - Specific allocation and signage for disabled spaces - Frequency of use for events - Recycling of the wall that’s being taken away - Argyll &…”

“- Car parking facilities - Planning history - Loss of Green Space in the village of Luss - Future use of the Manse - Traffic accidents and ‘near-miss’ incidents reported - Access to church grounds as pedestrians - The use of land/private property…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members approved the application unanimously, with the officer’s recommendation proposed and seconded.

“DECISION: Members APPROVED the application by a unanimous vote subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report. RJ proposed recommendation and DM seconded. CD confirmed the decision of the committee.”

Minutes