Venue: Aros Hall, Main Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull
Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rory Colville, Lorna Douglas, Audrey Forrest, Graham Archibald Hardie, Roderick McCuish, Jean Moffat and Sandy Taylor. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were none intimated. |
|
Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Additional documents:
Minutes: 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 18th
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. |