Venue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rory Colville, Kieron Green, Roderick McCuish and Sandy Taylor.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting which was held on a remotely in line with the Council’s current approach to the Covid-19 guidelines. For the purposes of the sederunt, Iain Jackson, Clerk to the Committee today, read out the names of the Members of the Committee and asked them to confirm their attendance.
In advance of the meeting today interested parties confirmed that they would make presentations to the Committee. Mr Jackson read out the names of those representatives and asked them to confirm their attendance.
The Chair, having explained the hearing procedure that would be followed, invited the Planning Officer to present the case.
Norman Shewan, Planning Officer, presented the application as follows on behalf of the Head of Development and Economic Growth.
This planning application was assessed by members at the PPSL Committee meeting on 22nd September at which time members determined to hold a discretionary hearing.
An informal site visit took place on Friday 12th November at which times Members were able to view the proposed site from the public road and from within the rear curtilage of the site. Internal access was difficult to arrange due to potential distress to animals and as such a short series of videos of the interior of the will be presented this morning.
The proposed development is for the temporary change of use of a dwellinghouse to a wildlife rescue facility with associated pens and aviary structures sited within the rear curtilage. The proposal is retrospective.
The information submitted with the application advises that
· capacity of animals at any one time is fluid depending on seasonal changes and the animals which are received however the typical average ranges between 70-100 animals.
· the wildlife rescue operates with 5 full-time and 10 plus voluntary staff members, with around 5-7 volunteers helping out daily on a staggered shift pattern in order to address various constraints including space limitations and COVID-19 restrictions.
· Procedural operations are carried out in accordance with an Operational Management Plan with regard to:-
Waste, Odour and Noise mitigation;
Pest control management;
· The proposal includes for ancillary on-site accommodation for the manager or a permanent staff member.
· The applicant has acknowledged that the aims and objectives for the centre are severely constricted by the limitations of the current site and that the centre is actively working towards securing a site for a purpose built centre that meet the demands of the local community and the aims of the charity. As such, this application is for a temporary planning permission in order to continue to provide animal welfare service during transition to a purpose-built centre.
· The Council’s Area Roads Engineer has no objection to the proposal with regard to impact upon matters of road safety or congestion, and is satisfied that the site has adequate on-site car parking provision to meet the required standards. Note that any planning permission should be subject to a condition requiring that these existing spaces be kept available for use.
· Council Environmental Health has no objection to the temporary approval of planning permission subject to the welfare centre being operated in accordance with the submitted Risk Management Plan, which should be monitored and up-dated as an evolving, working document.
· Dunoon Community Council objects to the proposed development on the basis that it presents a detriment to nearby residents in terms of ‘bad neighbour’ type of development, health and safety and road issues.
· Hunters Quay Community Council objects on the basis that a dwellinghouse within a residential area is not an appropriate location for this type of use. HQCC however does acknowledge the benefits of such a use in principle and feels strongly that cooperation with all involved to find an alternative site is the way ahead.
· Sandbank Community Council supports the application for temporary planning permission on the basis of its positive contribution towards conservation and ecological protection.
A summary of representations has been reported to Members as part of the PPSL Report of Handling and those representations are available for inspection on the planning file.
Members will be aware from the supplementary Report to this Hearing that: -
· additional photographs have been received in support of previous objections received;
· A representation of support has been received;
· And clarification has been made that 1 no. supporter reported to PPSL on 22nd September had withdrawn her support prior to that meeting.
It is not considered that the items referred to in the supplementary raise any new planning issues that would affect officers’ assessment or recommendation.
Members will be fully aware of the nature of both the support for and objections to this application.
In summary, the objections relate largely to the residential property located within a homogenous residential area being inappropriate for this use resulting in undue detriment to residential amenities by reason of noise, general disturbance, risk to health and safety and detriment to residential visual amenity. It is submitted that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the LDP with particular reference to SG LDP BAD 1. Additionally, objectors are concerned that the use results in road traffic hazards and congestion due to on-street parking.
Supporters raise the positive benefits to the wider community of the use and submit that the use is capable of being continued for a temporary period without undue detriment to residential amenities.
This proposal falls within the type of development that has to be assessed under the provisions of SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development. The provisions of policy LDP 8 and SG LDP BAD 1 mean that development will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the proposal will not adversely affect the residential amenity. Objections in this respect have been fully assessed, however, Council environmental health officers have investigated previous complaints and failed to identify material harm to residential amenities. Likewise, numerous site inspections by planning officers has failed to provide any evidence of material harm. In the absence of direct ... view the full minutes text for item 3.