Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Chair welcomed all those present to the meeting and introductions were made.  He outlined the procedure and invited the Governance, Risk and Safety Manager to identify all those present who wished to speak.

PLANNING

Tim Williams presented the application on behalf of the Head of Development and Economic Growth.  He made the following presentation referring to a number of PowerPoint slides which were displayed to the Committee -

Before commencing my presentation and whilst this matter was drawn to the attention of Members at the October PPSL Meeting, for the benefit of this Hearing and in the interests of ensuring complete transparency, I wish to reiterate two minor errors within the published Report of Handling.

On Page 3 of your Agenda Pack (the first page of Agenda Item 3) the report states that there has been no response from the Council’s Environmental Health team. I must inform you that this is not correct. The Environmental Health officer did respond and offered no objection to the proposed development by memo dated 18^th September 2017.

In addition, on the next page, Page 4, under the summary of the comments from the Council’s flood risk officer it states that he objects to the development as the proposal is contrary to Policy LDP 11 and Supplementary Guidance TRAN 7. That should read Policy LDP 10 and Supplementary Guidance SERV 7; these being the key Local Development Plan policies in this case and those specifically, and correctly, referenced throughout the remainder of the report of handling.

I can only apologise for these errors to this one small section of the text and ask that it be minuted that the report be thus corrected.

In terms of the adopted Local Development Plan, the application site is located within the ‘Main Town Centre’ of the ‘Key Settlement’ of Tobermory wherein settlement strategy policy LDP DM 1 of the Local Development Plan gives encouragement to appropriate and sustainable forms of up to large scale development upon suitable sites subject to compliance with other relevant local and national planning policy and guidance.

The proposal is for a mixed use development consisting of a medium scale retail component and a small scale tourism offer which represents an appropriately high quality, well designed and suitable proportioned development within an existing ‘gap site’ within the Tobermory Harbour waterfront and conservation area. The proposed development has attracted some 51 letters of support. It is considered that the proposed development is wholly compliant with all relevant provisions of both local and national planning policy, with the material and critical exception of flood risk.

Members will have read the report of handling and I am aware that some or all of you have been contacted directly by one of the Applicant’s Agents. The recommendation of officers is that this is not an appropriate site for this specific development as it will result in a built development located within the functional coastal floodplain and determined as being categorised as a ‘Highly Vulnerable Use’ within an area of medium to high flood risk, clearly contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and SEPAs published flood guidance as well as the Council’s own flood risk policy and supplementary guidance.

SEPA, as the government’s flood risk agency have strenuously maintained an objection to the proposed development and no appropriate compromise position has been found sufficient to allow officers to recommend to Members that the application can be considered acceptable.

It is anticipated and accepted that this stance may not sit comfortably with Members and I must advise that should Members be minded to go against officer’s recommendation in this case, they will be required to notify this intention to Scottish Ministers and to explain, in detail, their reasons for wishing to depart from national and local flood risk policy.

I must take this opportunity to express publically my profound disappointment that SEPA have elected not to be represented in person at today’s proceedings; this despite their initial confirmation that they would attend. However, I should stress to Members and to those in attendance today that the absence of SEPA must not be taken as any indication that they have somehow ‘backtracked’ on their consistent objection to the proposed development.

Conversely, however, I would ask that Members bear in mind, particularly during their questions and assessment, that the key determining issue in this case rests solely on a single technical matter; that the Government agency tasked with formulating and operating national planning policy surrounding that issue is not present today and, therefore, the value from today’s debate may not entirely meet the high standards normally expected. Having now carried out a site inspection, Members may wish to consider a continuation of these proceedings to a time and place mutually agreeable and in order to secure the attendance of SEPA.

I propose to leave this as a rhetorical matter and move on.

This is the submitted amended ground floor plan which shows a large, open retail unit to the right hand side and a smaller tourist information office to the left hand side. It also shows the recently added ‘flood refuge’ area to the rear of the building. This consists of an elevated rectangular platform cut into the hillside at the rear of the site and accessed via stairs. This refuge area is open in the main part with a small covered area to the left hand side. It is noted that it affords no level access for the mobility impaired.

This is the proposed first floor plan which consists of three two-bedroomed residential holiday letting units, accessed via an external staircase to a covered but open gallery access landing to the rear.

These are the proposed elevations with a helpful street montage illustration. The proposed development would adjoin the existing harbour building to the left hand side and sit within an existing undeveloped gap between the harbour building and MacGochans bar and restaurant to the right hand side. The proposed building would have a relatively simple form and an attractive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3