Agenda and minutes

Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee - Monday, 3 December 2012 10:30 am

Venue: Pillar Hall, Victoria Halls, Helensburgh

Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392 

No. Item




Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Rory Colville, Robin Currie, Mary-Jean Devon, George Freeman and Fred Hall.




None declared.



Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Additional documents:


The Chair invited everyone to the meeting and Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law, outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited anyone who wished to speak at the meeting to identify themselves.  Thereafter introductions were made and the Chair invited the Planning Officer to set out his recommendations.




Howard Young, Area Team Leader, spoke to the terms of the report advising that this application was for an L shaped dwelling house within the curtilage of 9 Stafford Street West, Helensburgh.  The site is within the ‘settlement’ boundary of Helensburgh as defined by the adopted Local Plan where there is a presumption in favour of development subject to site specific criteria being met.  The site is also within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation area and as such the development must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  He referred to a number of slides showing the location of the plot, the design of the proposed development, elevations, developments in the nearby vicinity of the site, and other infill developments approved in the last 2 years.  The site as a whole measures approximately 960 sqm of which the area of the proposed building is approximately 540 sqm.  He advised that it is considered that the application site is large enough to accommodate a dwelling and that a new house will not appear as overdevelopment or undermine the character of the Conservation area.  He advised that the design of the dwelling house was acceptable and would not impact on neighbouring properties or the surrounding area by way of overlooking, overshadowing or loss of daylight and as such accords with policy and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions detailed in the report.




Bruce Jamieson of Puregreenspace advised that he and Mike Hyde of MH Planning were here to speak on behalf of the Applicant.  He advised that the proposal accorded with the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations that caused any concern.  He advised that Puregreenspace were approached by Mrs Noon following the pre planning application stage with Mr Hyde and advised that Mr Hyde was here to give some more background information on this pre planning application stage.


Mike Hyde advised that he looked at the site during the initial stage and met at the site with Howard Young in November 2011.  He subsequently received written confirmation from Mr Young advising that the principle of building a house on this site would be acceptable depending on the size and design of the house.  Mr Hyde advised that the proposed development was not a large house on a small plot.  He advised that the proposed dwelling would only occupy 29% of the whole the site and that policy allowed for dwellings up to 33% of a plot.  He advised that the proposal was for a modest, well designed, new development which would be developed sensitively and that impact would be limited.  He advised that he did not feel there would be any adverse impact on the setting, and no impact on nearby listed buildings with no overlooking or overshadowing.  He referred to a previous planning application at Dean House when there were over 100 letters of objection and that the objectors had raised similar concerns in respect of this current application.  He advised that it was clear from the end result that many of the concerns in that instance were misplaced and that this site can accommodate the development.


Bruce Jamieson advised that Puregreenspace were approached after the pre application process.  He advised that Mrs Noon was not a developer and that she wished to build a special house in the area she already lived at.  He advised that Puregreenspace design sustainable green houses.  He advised that he had looked at how other houses were built in the surrounding area and also looked at the street patterns in the surrounding area.  With the aid of plans he demonstrated that blocks in Helensburgh’s Conservation area were divided North-South and that the houses on the south were set back from the road with front gardens and that the houses on the north tended to be built up to the verge with centrally located gardens to the south.  He advised that this plot was 23 m wide and was one of the wider plots in the area.  He referred to the original plan for the site.  He advised that they had taken into consideration the objection from Helensburgh Community Council regarding integration within the local urban landscape and noted their concern that the house would dominate the site and would be out of proportion.  In response to this concern he advised that the footprint of the development had now been reduced by 10% down to 159.32 sqm and that the open space ratio was now 28.8% instead of 31.7%.  He advised that the amendment to the plan still included a garage in the proposal which could have been added at a future date under permitted development rights.  He advised that the development was DDA compliant and that the house would be highly adaptable in the future, whether for a family or anyone of ambulant disabled or disabled status.  He advised that the proposed building will aim to meet the Gold Standard for sustainability and that the long south facing elevation means maximised solar gains, without affecting amenity of neighbouring properties.  He referred to a plan showing how the property will look from the street and the height of the elevation of the proposed property in relation to neighbouring properties.  He advised that further to the various objections received on the application the design was altered and since making the following amendments there have been no further objections:-


  • Overall footprint of the house was reduced by 10% to take account of concerns by Helensburgh Community Council
  • The open space ratio was reduced to under 29%
  • The distance to the neighbour on the west boundary wall was increased by 1m to 2.5m
  • The depth of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.