Issue - meetings

Report by Head Development and Economic Growth

Prior to presenting the application, the Planning Officer referred to a supplementary report which advised of a late objection and a request from the Applicants’ Agent for continuation of this application for 4 weeks.  The Committee were advised that the late objection raised no new information.  The Planning Officer provided further information on why continuation of consideration of this application was sought and gave reasons why granting this extension was not recommended.  Members were invited to consider whether or not to continue consideration of this application.

 

Motion

 

To agree to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting.

 

Moved by Councillor Rory Colville, seconded by Councillor George Freeman

 

Amendment

 

To agree to proceed with consideration of this application today.

 

Moved by Councillor Jean Moffat, seconded by Councillor Audrey Forrest

 

A vote was taken by calling the roll.

 

Motion                                                 Amendment

 

Councillor Colville                               Councillor Blair

Councillor Freeman                            Councillor Devon

Councillor Hardie                                Councillor Forrest

Councillor Kinniburgh                          Councillor Green

                                                            Councillor McCuish

                                                            Councillor Moffat

                                                            Councillor Redman

                                                            Councillor Taylor

                                                            Councillor Trail

 

The Amendment was carried by 9 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

                                                           

The Planning Officer then proceeded to present the application and spoke to the terms of the report.  Planning permission was previously granted (ref. 17/02052/PP) to allow the Applicants to erect a deer fence on condition that access elsewhere on the estate was improved to mitigate the loss of public access to land within the area enclosed by the deer fence.  Conditions 2, 3 and 4 attached to this consent were appealed against by the Applicants and an appeal (reference 18/0005/LRB) was submitted to the Argyll and Bute Local Review Body on 28 June 2018.  The Local Review Body unanimously recommended that the conditions remain as per the Officer’s recommendation and that the appeal be dismissed. 

 

The current application to remove planning conditions 2d (path improvements) and 4 (footpath link) without carrying out necessary improvements for alternative path systems would be contrary to Policy LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure and Policy SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors, of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.  The proposal to remove these conditions would also be contrary to the decision taken by the Local Review Body.

 

Letters of objection have been received from 18 individuals, the details of which were contained within Section F of the report of handling.  The determining factor of this application is procedural in that the Applicants are attempting to remove planning conditions previously appealed to a Local Review Body but dismissed on the grounds that the original planning conditions were reasonable.  As the application is recommended for refusal, it is not considered that a hearing would add value to the determination process.

 

In the absence of any notable improvements in the last year, the Applicants have left the department no other option than to recommend refusal of this application as it does not address the previous breaches of planning conditions and the decision taken by the Local Review Body in 2018.

 

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant development plan policies and it was recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons stated in the report of handling.

 

Decision

 

The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1.    The Council previously granted planning permission (ref. 17/02052/PP) to the applicants to allow them to erect the deer fencing on condition that access elsewhere on the estate was improved to mitigate the loss of public access to land within the area enclosed by the deer fence. The current application to remove these conditions without carrying out necessary improvements for alternative path systems would be contrary to Policy LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure and  Policy SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan that requires development proposals to safeguard and enhance public rights of access to the outdoors in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate to the specific site characteristics and the scale and impact of the proposed development on access issues. The proposal to remove these conditions would also be contrary the decision taken by The Local Review Body on 28^th June 2018,  when the applicants lodged an appeal (ref. 18/0005/LRB) against conditions, 2, 3 and 4 of Planning Permission (ref. 17/02052/PP) for the erection of an 1800mm high deer fence.

 

Whilst the route of the ‘southern access path’ and ‘eastern flank’ path systems have been agreed and are currently in use, these informal paths are considered to be unsatisfactory in providing suitable alternative paths for those closed off by the erection of the deer fence. The  ‘southern access path’ and ‘eastern flank’ path systems would benefit from better surfacing, additional signage, improved drainage measures, regular strimming and removal of obstructions in the form of fallen trees or tree roots. Without these necessary improvements to provide suitable alternative public access routes, the proposal would be inconsistent with policies to Policy LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 1 of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan which seek to safeguard and enhance public rights of access to the outdoors in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate to the specific site characteristics and the scale and impact of the proposed development on access issues.

 

Councillor George Freeman, having failed to find a seconder for a proposed Amendment, asked that his dissent from the foregoing decision be recorded.

 

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 January 2021 and supplementary report number 1 dated 19 January 2021, submitted)