Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors Gordon Blair, Rory Colville, Iain MacDonald and Robert G MacIntyre.

None declared.

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

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

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

The Chair advised that one of the objectors had contacted him by telephone to advise that it was his intention to attend and speak at this hearing today, however, he was travelling up from Kintyre and due to the adverse weather in that area at the weekend he would be late in arriving at the hearing.  The Chair advised that on this occasion, due to the unforeseen circumstances regarding the weather in Kintyre, he was minded to allow the objector to take part in the hearing even if he arrived late as it was not possible to delay the start of the hearing until he arrived.  He asked Members if they would agree to the objector being able to take part if he arrived while the hearing was still ongoing and they all agreed that the objector should be afforded the opportunity to speak.  The Chair then asked the Applicant’s Agent if they had any objection to the objector being able to take part in the hearing.  Mr Bennison advised that as long as he was able to address any issues raised by the objector during his summation he was happy for the objector to be allowed to speak.  The Committee agreed that if the objector arrived during the course of the hearing he would be allowed to present his case.

The Chair then invited the Planning Officer to set out his recommendations.

PLANNING

Stephen Fair presented the case on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  He advised that this application for planning permission in principle was submitted by Melfort Care for the erection of 24 flats on the site of the former Ossians Retirement Home, North Connel.  He advised that as this was an application for planning permission in principle there was no requirement for detailed plans to be submitted, however, indicative plans have been submitted to assist in the assessment of the proposal.  The application site is occupied by a large vacant building which was previously used as a care home and comprises a 2 storey frontage and a single storey rear projection.  He referred to site plans showing the site outlined in red and an area of land also owned by the Applicant highlighted in blue.  He advised that the initial proposal comprised 27 units and that this has since been reduced to 24 units with the indicative layout showing a flatted development.  He advised that access to the site would utilise an existing track which would be upgraded to an adoptable standard.  He advised that in terms of the Local Plan the site lies within an area of settlement.  He referred to a number of photographs showing that the site lies alongside Falls View apartments and showing the existing access track which would be upgraded.  He advised that 15 letters of objection were received from 11 different sources and concerns were also expressed by Ardchattan Community Council.  He advised that since the report of handling was prepared one party has queried his categorisation as an objector.  He was invited to attend the hearing today to clarify if he was neutral or an objector and the Planning Officer noted that he was not in attendance today to speak.   Mr Fair advised that it was not clear whether this person was an objector or not and that he was currently listed as an objector as he had raised concerns.  Mr Fair also referred to a separate challenge that has made to the Council regarding its ability to hold a hearing and a separate response will be made to this challenge.  He advised that under Section 38A, sub paragraph 4 of the of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the 2006 Act, the Council have the right to hold a discretionary pre-determination hearing when it sees fit in respect of any planning application brought before them for consideration.  Referring to this proposal, he advised that the site lies within the ‘Settlement Zone’ for North Connel which is identified in the Local Plan as one of the ‘Small Towns and Villages’.  The proposal constitutes an acceptable form of ‘medium scale’ redevelopment within the ‘Settlement Zone’ for North Connel within which there is a general presumption in favour of residential development.  He advised that the proposal satisfies Policies STRAT DC 1 and LP HOU 1 and LP HOU 2 of the Development Plan.  He referred to section J of the report of handling which gave a full  appraisal of the proposed development.  He also referred to the planning history of the site and highlighted the different concerns raised by the objectors which were summarised in the report of handling.  He advised that Ardchattan Community Council, one of the statutory consultees, had raised concerns about the lack of detail in the application which had made it difficult to assess.  They also had concerns regarding water and drainage, road safety and the intended occupancy of the buildings.  In respect of the other consultees, he advised that Roads had no objection subject to conditions; the Biodiversity Officer had no objection subject to a condition and had advised that it would be fitting to carry out a bat survey during the detailed stage.  He advised that the Access Officer had no objection and SEPA had no objection subject to conditions.  He advised that no other statutory consultee had raised any objection to the proposal.  He advised that the Applicant had voluntarily reduced the scheme from 27 to 24 units which in part addressed some of the concerns of the third parties.  He recommended approval of this planning permission in principle subject to a number of conditions as detailed in the report of handling.

APPLICANT

Craig Bennison the legal representative of Melfort Care introduced himself and advised that he was accompanied by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.