Agenda and minutes

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked the participants to introduce themselves.

The Head of Governance and Law spoke to the procedure that would be followed at the meeting and in accordance with the first step, asked attendees who wished to address the Committee to identify themselves.

Planning Authority

Mr Eaglesham spoke regarding the application advising that it was for a change of use of a dwelling (class 9) to family mediation centre which falls outwith the class categories and therefore is referred to as sui generis.  He referred to the location plan and the earlier informal site visit by the Members of the Committee.  He advised that there were no physical changes required to the property.

Mr Eaglesham advised his understanding of the proposed use was that it was to be used in relation to families in dispute in attempt to resolve their difficulties.  The families using the centre would be supervised at all time by staff and the centre would operate during the hours of Monday to Saturday, 9am to 5pm for sessions lasting between 1 and 2 hours.

Mr Eaglesham advised that there had been no objection from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and that the Roads Authority had asked the case to be deferred to see whether site lines could be achieved.  They had also advised that there should be 4 spaces for parking for the centre, an additional 2 for the cottages (1 each) and a turning space.  From the site visit it was clear the proposal did not meet these standards.

Mr Eaglesham then discussed the 26 letters of representation (24 objections and 2 in support) and issues raised which included an increase in the comings and goings of people at non specific times, limited parking, road safety issues, noise level increases in the area due to shouting adults and children and that the proposal was incompatible with the surrounding residential area.  Within the two letters of support there was comment that one tenant had no experience of complaint and a solicitor had commented that they had not observed any of the issues raised during their visits.

In conclusion, Mr Eaglesham advised that the policy was within the settlement zone and therefore STRAT DC 1 was applied.  The proposal was consistent with this policy and he did not consider it was contrary to LP BAD 1 which was more appropriate in use for takeaways or public houses due to nuisances caused by odour, noise etc.  The bulk of representations were in relation to impact on privacy and amenity but from the information supplied by the applicants there were only a maximum of 3 appointments per day with these visits being staggered.  He felt this was a low key use and with the addition of conditions restricting the opening hours and number of appointments per day this would ensure no undue increase in usage.  He suggested that if the Committee were minded to grant the application they may wish to do so for a 12 month period to allow a re-assessment in view of the anti social behaviour claims.  The proposal was also complied with LP ENV 1.  While the applicant couldn’t comply with the parking requests he felt that there would be little increase in the property than if it were a family home and therefore it was not appropriate to recommend refusal on roads grounds.

Applicant

Mrs MacLeod spoke on behalf of the company in her capacity as one of the Company Directors.  She advised that Tanya MacDougall who was the centre manager was present if the Committee had any questions relating to the operation of the centre and that in addition Mr Carroll and one of the volunteers would also speak.

Mrs MacLeod spoke to the background of the service which had been in operation since 2001.  The service had begun in Oban but was offered out to other areas in Argyll and Bute.  She commented on the similarities of the property in Oban to Athole Cottage, advising that both properties were homely, making children feel comfortable and that they had gardens that the children could run out in if they felt overwhelmed during a reunion which could often be with a parent they had been split up from for some time.  She advised that it was crucial to have a safe, comfortable environment for these mediation sessions and that Athole Cottage provided this.  She discussed previous arrangements for the sessions which included use of sterile halls which were not suitable, confidential or of any comfort to a child.  She also advised that the house had been offered to the Company as a safe, secure family home and this was the basis which it was being used.

Mrs MacLeod advised that she had checked with Strathclyde Police in Oban to see if there were any complaints in relation to the centre.  The Police had confirmed that there were no complaints on record.  She advised that she felt the movement to and from Athole Cottage would be no greater than normal family use and apologised for the fact that planning permission had not been sought before the centre started operating and that she hoped the Committee would deal with on the merits of the case and not on the basis of being retrospective.  She commented that the proposal did not breach the Development Plan and that by no stretch of the imagination could it be considered a bad neighbour development. 

Mrs MacLeod then spoke regarding arrangements for use of the centre and of the no drink or drugs or bad language agreement that clients must sign up to..  She extended an invite to the objectors to visit the centre to review the work taking place so long as there were not sessions being run.  She discussed the hours of operation advising of the pattern in increased activity of the centre and categorically denied that there were any loud, ranting exchanges due to clients signing up to the agreement.

Mrs MacLeod then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Committee were invited to consider how best to progress the enforcement case 10/00168/ENOTH.

Decision

Agreed to serve an enforcement notice with a 6 month period for compliance.

(Ref:  Report by Director of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 18 August 2010, submitted)

E1             Paragraph 13  Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes-

(a)               to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b)               to make an order or direction under any enactment.