Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1.  The site comprises a prominent, Category B Listed Building, formerly a dwellinghouse, set within extensive landscaped grounds and located within the village of Rhu and Rhu Conservation Area.  The house has been used periodically over the last two and a half years for short term letting.  This application seeks retrospective planning permission for change of use from a single dwellinghouse falling within Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 to sui-generis use described as “exclusive use visitor accommodation”. 

At the time of writing the report of handling a total of 34 representations had been received objecting to the application.  Objections were also received from the Council’s Roads Engineer and Rhu and Shandon Community Council.  A summary of the issues raised were detailed at section (c) and section (F) ii of the report.  Since publication of the Agenda pack a further 38 representations were received comprising 31 in support and a further 7 objections.  None of the issues raised changed the Officer’s recommendation set out in the report of handling and it was not considered that holding a hearing would add value to the decision making process. 

Having regard to all material planning considerations it was considered that the proposed development/change of use would be out of keeping with, and detrimental to, the character and residential amenities of the local area; and to the free flow of traffic and road safety.  The proposed development was considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify a departure from these provisions.  It was recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report of handling.

Motion

To agree to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of handling.

Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor George Freeman.

Amendment

To agree to hold a site visit in advance of determining this application.

Moved by Councillor Gordon Blair, seconded by Councillor Mary-Jean Devon.

A vote was taken by calling the roll.

Motion                                                 Amendment

Councillor Rory Colville                      Councillor Gordon Blair

Councillor Audrey Forrest                   Councillor Mary-Jean Devon

Councillor George Freeman

Councillor Kieron Green

Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie

Councillor David Kinniburgh

Councillor Donald MacMillan

Councillor Jean Moffat

Councillor Alastair Redman

Councillor Richard Trail

The Motion was carried by 10 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

Decision

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

1.    Having regard to the scale and proposed nature and pattern of the proposed use in conjunction with the proximity of dwellinghouses within a uniformly residential area, the proposal would be severely detrimental to the residential amenities of residents. It would be out of keeping with the quiet residential character of the area and the proposal would not protect the established residential character and appearance of Rhu Conservation Area. The intensification of use of a dwellinghouse by up to 24 people over a condensed letting period would result in general disturbance and significant detrimental impact on amenity by reason of intrusive and prolonged noise levels including amplified music, often at unsociable hours and intensification of activity including commercial and car vehicle movements. Environmental Health has concluded that this type of proposal could give cause for noise breakout causing nuisance to neighbouring residential properties. It has not been demonstrated that potential impacts upon the residential character and amenities of the local area can be satisfactorily mitigated by means of management or planning mechanisms including planning conditions or a ‘good neighbour agreement’. Given the above the proposal is contrary to Policies LDP 3, LDP 5, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 17, SG LDP TOUR 1 and SG LDP BAD 1 which presume against development which does not protect, conserve or where possible enhance the established character of the built environment in terms of its location, scale, form and design, and development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing Conservation Area.

The proposal is also contrary to Policies 14 (Bad Neighbour Development) and 23  (Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities) of the proposed Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 approved November 2019.  Following consultation on this plan, no representations have been received on these policies and they will proceed unaltered into the adopted Local Development Plan 2 and can therefore be afforded significant weight.

2.    By reason of narrow width, lack of footways, sub-standard visibility at access junctions and existing volume and speed of traffic, the existing private road regime does not have capacity to accommodate the intensification, nature and pattern of vehicular traffic movements generated by the proposed development without undue detrimental impact upon road safety and the free flow of traffic contrary to the provisions of policy  LDP 11 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP TRAN 4 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 September 2021, submitted)