Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the Head of Governance and Law to outline the procedure that would be followed.  Thereafter introductions were made and those who wished to speak were identified.

The Committee noted the request from Councillor Corry to speak at the Hearing and they agreed to exercise their discretion to allow him to participate.

Planning

Howard Young spoke to the terms of the report on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  Before giving his presentation he advised of a late representation which had been received from Sheriff Pender and he summarised the contents of the letter received from the Sheriff.  He advised of a letter received from residents of Rhu, Shandon and Helensburgh which had been circulated to Members.  He also confirmed that a further 300 signatures had subscribed to the Save Our Rhu Bay community appeal referred to in supplementary planning report number 1 which brought the total to 1,300.

Mr Young referred to the site familiarisation visit undertaken by Members prior to the hearing and brought to their attention the key points of the Masterplan report.  He referred to plans showing the site itself and the site in the context of the Local Development Plan which was within the settlement boundary of Rhu and the Rhu Conservation Area.  He advised that Rhu Marina was designated in the current Local Plan as Potential Development Area (PDA) 3/29 and that under this designation it is identified for a mixed use development comprising Housing, Leisure, Tourism, Business and Retail.  He advised that the components of the mixed use scheme contained within the Masterplan were considered to be compatible with PDA 3/29 and it was considered that there was sufficient detail to assess the proposed redevelopment in principle.

He advised that the Masterplan site was primarily split into two halves and with the aid of slides highlighted the various components of both halves.  He referred to a Design Statement which was submitted and indicated that the maximum height of the buildings would be no more than 2.5 stories and that the mixed use of the site would allow for properties of different heights thus providing a varied roofscapes.  He advised that the submitted drawings indicated a simple form of residential development that would require to be improved.  He advised that in principle the overall design and layout was acceptable as was the use of traditional materials such as slate.

He advised that a large number of objections had been received and that key concerns related to the height of the buildings, the need for a coastal location and infill in Rhu Bay.  He advised that the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan identified developed coast as coastal sectors of existing settlements and countryside around settlements.  He advised that this was the preferred area for coastal development particularly where it makes best use of existing infrastructure or brownfield land and that it was considered in principle that the PDA site met these criteria.

He advised that the Masterplan site was larger than the PDA and included an area of infill west of the area.  He advised that infill was previously accepted under planning application 04/01218/DET for works to provide a revised layout of berths via floating pontoons, car parking area and erection of a new building to provide public bar, restaurant, hotel (class 7), office accommodation (class 4) and ancillary features and that the time on this application expired on 4 February 2013.  He advised that the area of infill proposed, approximately 1.36 acres, when assessed on its merits, was smaller than that approved under the 2004 application and was within the settlement boundary.  He advised that the area of infill was considered complementary to the overall regeneration of the site by allowing a more substantial area for public realm, increasing diversity of use and, potentially, strategic planting and as such it was considered that it was part of the locational and operational need associated with the marina development, an appropriate extension to, and consistent with, the PDA and its aims, supportive of the redevelopment proposal and consistent with the Local Plan.  He advised that another key concern of the objectors was the relevance of the 2004 application.  He advised that the planning history of the site was clearly a material consideration but that it was also clear that a time expired consent should be given less weight than one that was still extant.  He advised that it would be for Members to decide what weight to give to it in the overall assessment of this proposal.

In conclusion, he advised that Argyll and Bute was suffering a projected population decline and was in a difficult economic climate in terms of competing for jobs and investment.  He advised that Argyll and Bute needed to be open for business but that did not mean approving anything and everything but the Council had to be aware of still competition from other Councils in other areas.  Referring to the earlier site visit, he advised that this was a very hard, industrial landscape, a brownfield site that looked tired and contributed little or anything to its present condition either to the settlement of Rhu or the Conservation area.

He advised that in this case two landowners were keen to invest in the existing Marina and redevelop it with a mix of uses already identified and agreed through public consultation in the adopted Local Plan.  He advised that the Masterplan was by its very nature neither a prescriptive document detailing every last aspect of the proposed future use of the site allowing no flexibility nor was it a blank canvas.  He advised that the Masterplan was indicative and gave interested parties sufficient detail to assess the future redevelopment of the site.  He advised that it was considered fit for purpose and recommended its endorsement as a material consideration in the next application.

Applicant

John Paton, Planning Consultant, advised that he represented Rhu Marina Developments Ltd and the Crown Estate.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3