Venue: Council Chamber, Kilmory, Lochgilphead
Contact: Melissa Stewart Tel. No. 01546 604331
Note | No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: Councillor MacAlister declared a financial interest in relation to item 3 (Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982: Taxi Fare Scale Review) of these Minutes on the basis that he is the holder of a taxi car licence. He left the room during discussion of the item and accordingly took no part in the decision making. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: (a) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 14 December 2010 were approved as a correct record. (b) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 15 December 2010 (9.45am) were approved as a correct record. (c) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 15 December 2010 (10.15am) were approved as a correct record. (d) The Minutes of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 15 December 2010 (10.45am) were approved as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor MacAlister, having previously declared an interest in the following item of business, left the meeting at this point. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW PDF 57 KB Report by Head of Governance and Law Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee, at their meeting in January 2010, had agreed to retain taxi fares at the existing level and given the indication that they would review this in January 2011. A report was before them which in which they were invited to consider the representations received in response to the consultation regarding review of fares and to decide on what course of action to take. Decision Agreed:- 1. to increase the fare structure as follows:- Tariff 1 - £2.70 Tariff 2 - £3.20 Tariff 3 - £3.70 2. that the charges in respect of soiling, waiting and telephone bookings remain as £100 (maximum), 30p per minute an 30p respectively; 3. that there be no change to the yardage distances which are currently based on an initial charge per 860yds and a subsequent charge of 20p for each additional 200 yds; 4. that the new charges be advertised by the Head of Governance and Law and come into force 21 February 2011; and 5. that a further review of the fare structure should be undertaken in 12 months time rather than the normal period of 18 months. (Ref: Report by Head of Governance and Law dated 16 December 2010, submitted) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor MacAlister re-joined the meeting at this point. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Additional documents: Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer spoke to the application
advising that this was for the retrospective formation of vehicular access to a
classified road and for erection of gates.
He advised that his recommendation was for refusal and outlined the
basis of this which related principally to road safety grounds, having
established from the Roads Engineer that the visibility splays were
significantly below that required. He
also referred to a late representation made by Cardross
Community Council who were firmly opposed to the development. He advised that
there were also concerns about the integrity of the listed nature of the wall
and concluded that the application contravened Policies LP TRAN 4, STRAT DC9,
LP ENV13a and LP ENV13b. Decision Agreed to refuse the application on the basis that:- 1.
The access is located within a 60MPH section of the A814
Dumbarton – Helensburgh road where the Council’s
Roads Engineers have assessed the 85% speed to be 50MPH in circumstances where
Council standards would require visibility splays of 4.5m by 120.0m to be
available in both directions. On site assessment indicates that visibility
splays of only 2.4m x 30.0m are available, which is well below the standard
required given traffic speeds at this location. The improvements required to
meet the necessary visibility requirements would involve land outwith the applicant’s control and would also involve
further undesirable alterations to the detriment of the continuity and historic
integrity of the listed boundary wall.
The access is therefore detrimental to the interests of road safety and is
contrary to the provisions of Policy LP TRAN 4 of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local
Plan’, as a satisfactory means of vehicular access cannot be achieved at this
point without third party land and without substantial alteration to the
boundary wall to afford the required visibility 2.
The introduction of an opening within this
listed boundary wall and the installation of gates disrupts its flow which has
a traditional style. This is visually discordant and has an adverse impact on
the character and appearance of the wall. The development has resulted in the
loss of historic fabric, has degraded the integrity of the wall and has
introduced a feature which fails to respect the traditional architectural and
historic character of the area. As such it is contrary to Policy STRAT DC9 of
the approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’, Policy LP ENV13a and LP
ENV13b of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ and advice given in ‘Scottish
Historic Environment Policy’ (Historic Scotland 2009). (Ref: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 22 December 2010, submitted) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Additional documents: Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer advised that the application
was linked to the previous application for the retrospective formation of
vehicular access to a classified road and for erection of gates. He referred to the consultation response by
Historic Scotland which required that consideration be given to the cumulative
effect of opening in the wall in relation to both this and the neighbouring
property, Ardoch. As with the previous application,
his recommendation was for refusal Decision Agreed to refuse the application on the basis that:- The introduction of an opening within this listed boundary
wall and the installation of gates disrupts its flow which has a traditional
style. This is visually discordant and has an adverse impact on the character
and appearance of the wall. The development has resulted in the loss of
historic fabric, has degraded the integrity of the wall and has introduced a
feature which fails to respect the traditional architectural and historic
character of the area. As such it is contrary to Policy STRAT DC9 of the
approved ‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’, Policy LP ENV13a and LP ENV13b
of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ and advice given in ‘Scottish Historic
Environment Policy’ (Historic Scotland 2009). (Ref: Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services dated 24 September 2009, submitted) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Additional documents: Minutes: The Principal Planning Officer advised that the application
was recommended for approval as a minor departure to policies STRAT DC 4, LP
HOU 1, P/DCZ 4 and the ‘North and South Kintyre Landscape Capacity Study’. This was on the basis that the application site
shared identical landscape characteristics and was located sufficiently close
to an ‘area with potential for development’ for an degree of flexibility to be
exercised . He explained the application
was also consistent with the other requirements for new development in the
locality and the proposed dwelling would not result in a significant alteration
or adverse impact upon landscape character. He then advised that the application had not received any
objections from statutory consultees and that there had been 91 letters of
support lodged, which was a material consideration in assessing the
application. Decision Agreed to approve the application subject to the following
conditions and reasons:-
|