Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Strong and Walsh.

None

The Chair introduced the Members of the Area Committee, and welcomed the Director of Development Services’ representative, the applicant, consultees and objectors to the Formal Planning Hearing.  The Chair outlined the procedure and purpose of the Hearing which was to allow all interested parties to state their case to the Area Committee, and for Members to debate the merits of the case and reach a decision on the planning application.

 

Planning Department

 

David Eaglesham, Team Leader, Development Control, gave a detailed and illustrated description of the proposed development.   He said the application was for the erection of 12 dwellinghouses, detached double garage, new vehicular access, car parking areas, turning areas and landscaping.  Mr Eaglesham said that he had received no objection from consultees but 13 letters of representation from members of the public on the scale of the development, access, safety, not in keeping with adjacent houses etc.  David Eaglesham said the development was contrary to the Cowal Local Plan in respect of overdevelopment and density and is considered contrary to both the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan and Argyll and Bute Local Plan Post Inquiry Modifications in terms of density, overdevelopment and relationship to the existing settlement pattern and asked Members to refuse the application.

 

Applicant

 

Mr Carrick advised that the development established the urban pattern and that Members should look at the whole setting including Pier Road and the Shore Road and not just North Campbell Road. 

 

Consultee

 

Paul Farrell advised that there had been many people interested in the site over the years and the access identified was the best for visibility up and down Pier Road.  There are 2 access’ already, one for the construction of Royal Cottages and the other is the old access to the Royal Hotel, these were not acceptable.  The proposed access will require a road construction consent and the provision of a road bond.

 

Objector

 

Mr McGill said the development had no relationship with the urban style, but was a crammed cluster and overdevelopment of land.  Mr McGill explained that LPENV 19 is countryside setting and overdevelopment shall be resisted, LPENV19 PAN 72 states that groups of dwelling should not be suburban in layout and style.  Mr McGill advised that the old Royal Hotel sat to the front of the site and the layout is not urban and should be green well spaced houses, whereas the proposal is to cram it with property which will not fit with the local community.  The initial development was for 4/5 houses on the site, which would be a sensible development.  Mr McGill said the access to the site is at the top of a steep hill on a hairpin bend.  The new road layout will never be enough for cars it will turn out to be a car park and this is not what he wants in Innellan and he asked that the Members uphold the recommendation to refuse the application.

 

The Chairman then invited questions from Members of the Committee.

 

 

 

 

Questions for Members

 

Members asked questions on the main entrance site lines and visibility up the hill, if the development of the site would enhance the area, affordable housing, and what would constitute an adequate number of houses.

 

The Chairman then invited the speakers to sum up.

 

Summing Up

 

David Eaglesham said he had very little to add, the site was suitable for development but the question is the scale, there is valid planning permission for 5 houses but 12 is not acceptable.

 

Mr Carrick asked Members to look at the overall context of the development advising that it is not countryside or a rural location it is a village and urged Members to approve the application.

 

Paul Farrell advised he had nothing further to add.

 

Mr McGill said asked that the 35m road length be further checked and asked Members to take on board his views and refuse the application.

 

The Chairman asked, and the participants confirmed they had each had a fair hearing.

The Committee then debated the merits of the application.

 

Decision

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to refuse the application in terms of the report by the Head of Planning.