Agenda and minutes

Apologies were intimated from Councillor Robin Currie, Councillor Rory Colville and Councillor Mary-Jean Devon

There were no Declarations of Interest

Reports by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and general introductions were made.

Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law outlined the hearing procedure and the Chair invited anyone who wished to speak at the meeting to identify themselves. 

It was noted that Mr Kenneth Crawford’s first name had been mistakenly noted as Keith on the report and this was corrected.

Planning Officer

Howard Young, Planning and Regulatory Services, gave a brief outline of the application site which was situated within the garden ground of 15 Loch Drive, Helensburgh, sitting within a larger development block running along Loch Drive to the north, Cairndhu Avenue on the east, Castle Avenue on the west and Kidston Drive to the south.  Mr Young advised that although this was an application in principle, indicative plans had been submitted. The two main issues which were outstanding were those of visual impact on the landscape and visual impact on the adjoining properties.

Within this part of Helensburgh there was a homogenous pattern apart from this plot which differed in that it comprised of two semi detached houses.  Given the current climate, Mr Young said that it was only to be expected that the number of applications of this kind would increase. To address the sun/daylight issue, the applicant’s agent had been asked to submit a report. Mr Young added that as the proposed new build be more than one storey, he would have concerns.  He was therefore recommended approval subject to conditions and reasons appended in his report.

Agent and Architect for Applicant

Mr Gareth Roberts, Organic Architects, introduced himself and provided a brief professional background.  He reminded everyone that under the Council’s own policy, there was a presumption in favour of the provision of housing and that this plot was in compliance under the issue of sustainability in Appendix A of the Local Plan.  He then went on to give an outline of the proposals and that in his opinion, the character of Loch Drive would not be adversely affected adding that there had been no objections from Roads Department or Scottish Water.  Addressing the daylight issue, he advised that the drawings produced during the initial application showed no significant impact.  He reminded those present that this was an application in principle only and that such issues as scale and form would be considered by a future application.

Statutory Consultee

Kathleen Siddle spoke on behalf of Helensburgh Community Council advising that they were in favour of such developments, but only when the site is right for Helensburgh and she gave examples of other such developments.  She went on to say however, that the HCC objected to this particular development based on the Argyll and Bute Local Plan, the HCC Design Statement, and also through consultation with the neighbours in Loch Drive itself.

The Argyll and Bute Local Plan Policy LP ENV 19 states that the development should be sited and positioned to pay regard to the context in which is it located.  Mrs Siddle stated that there was no ambiguity in this policy and that it meant that the landscape must considered.  From the visit to the site and from the attached location plan, it was evident that most of the houses on Loch Drive were detached and set within their own gardens.  The only exception was the 2 sets of semi-detached properties at numbers 9 – 15.  Each of these had a large garden at their side, making a most attractive balance between hard buildings and soft green garden land.  Together with the fact that the vast majority of the houses and gardens in the street are maintained to a high standard, this resulted in a street of great charm

The plan to infill one of these such garden spaces with a hard building would destroy the soft richness, openness, and balance of this part of the street.  The resulting continuous line of building would look completely out of character with its surroundings and be very visually intrusive in the streetscape.

There were concerns that Argyll and Bute Council had suggested a single storey building for this site, as apart from this one, all the other buildings in this area are of one and a half or two storeys high.  In this context, a single storey would look odd and that the development would not be paying regard to Policy LP ENV 19.

Regarding layout and density in the same policy, Mrs Siddle referred to the phrase “inappropriate layouts or densities including over-development shall be resisted.  It was the opinion of HCC that the mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling, even single storey, would cause serious densification on the site, leaving the dwelling houses on either side very enclosed and at odds with the rest of the street.  This would be even worse if the development was to be one and a half or even two storeys high.

On a practical level, Mrs Siddle advised that the small gap between the existing houses and the proposed house would make it impossible for a car to drive between the houses to any garage or parking at the rear.  As the garage at No. 15 had already been demolished and part of its ground space would be taken up by the proposed development, the only place to park a car would be at the front of the property and that this was a situation that did not occur in this part of the street.

Mrs Siddle then referred to the Helensburgh Design Statement which she said aspired to raise the standard of building throughout the town and added that it had never been openly challenged or criticised.  She said that when looking at planning applications, it encouraged the reader to consider whether the proposal would integrate with the immediate and wider landscape.  By looking odd and out of character with the rest of the street, and causing loss of balance between the buildings and garden spaces, the planning application in front of us today would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.