Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Kieron Green, Daniel Hampsey, Willie Hume and Paul Kennedy.

Councillor Jan Brown advised that in relation to item 7 on the Agenda – Argyll Community Housing Association: Demolition of Five Tenement Blocks Comprising 46 Flats: Block A 19-9E John Street, Block C (1-5 Dalintober and 24 – 26 High Street). John Street, Prince’s Street and High Street, Campbeltown Ref: 21/02738/LIB, she had been appointed to the Board of ACHA by the Council.  Having taken note of the updated Standards Commission Guidance in relation to declarations (issued on 7 December 2021) with specific reference to section 5.4(c) she did not consider that she had a relevant connection and as such would remain the meeting.

a)    The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 October 2022 was approved as a correct record.

b)    The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 2 November 2022 at 10.00 am was approved as a correct record.

c)    The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 2 November 2022 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record.

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1 which referred to an email circulated to all Members of the Committee by the Applicant in response to comments in the original report.  Reference was also made to a further email circulated by the Applicant to all Members of the Committee this morning.  This application was before the Committee for consideration due to the large volume of representations received, 108 in support and 4 objections.  It was drawn to Members’ attention that in terms of the original list of representations received, Officers had been contacted by Clive Burns, Josephine Brown and John Crossan who were listed as supporters and now wished their representations to be removed bringing the new total down to 105 in support.  Officers had also received contact from other parties who could not recall submitting a representation.  It was noted that Officers accepted submissions on face value and any issue of misrepresentation was a civil matter.

The site is located within the minor settlement area boundary of Rhu and the Rhu Conservation Area.  The principal of the development has been established under the previous consent reference 20/01150/PP.  This application solely relates to the variation of roads conditions relative to planning permission 20/01150/PP.  During determination of this application a revised package of information was submitted by the Applicant which included a set of revised drawings, a report by ECS Transport Planning Ltd and a covering letter from the Agent detailing the basis of their reasoning behind the proposal to vary/remove the roads conditions relative to planning permission 20/01150/PP.  The Roads Officer was re-consulted on the basis of this revised package of information and in turn the Applicant has passed comment on this consultation, to which the Roads Officer has provided a further response.  The Roads Officer has concluded that conditions 3a, 3b and 5 should remain unchanged for the reasons stated in Appendix A of the report and that conditions 4, 6, 7 and 8 can be amended as detailed in Appendix A of the report. 

It is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report.

Motion

To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report.

Moved by Councillor Liz McCabe, seconded by Councillor Andrew Kain.

Amendment

To agree to continue consideration of this application and instruct Officers to make arrangements for the PPSL Committee to accompany Planning and Roads Officers on a site visit, with the application being brought back to a future meeting of the Committee for determination following this site visit.

Moved by Councillor Mark Irvine, seconded by Councillor Jan Brown.

A vote was taken by calling the roll.

Motion                                     Amendment

Councillor A Hampsey            Councillor Armour

Councillor Kain                        Councillor Brown

Councillor McCabe                 Councillor Hardie

Councillor Wallace                  Councillor Howard

                                                Councillor Irvine

                                                Councillor Martin

The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

Decision

The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application and instruct Officers to make arrangements for the PPSL Committee to accompany Planning and Roads Officers on a site visit, with the application being brought back to a future meeting of the Committee for determination following this site visit.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 8 November 2022, supplementary report number 1 dated 22 November 2022, submitted)

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Planning Officer for Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands spoke to the terms of the report.  The proposal seeks planning permission for a new, ‘large scale’ industrial distillery and ancillary visitor centre development at a Countryside Management Zone location and partly within the ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ (ROA) Development Management Zone.  The application has attracted 37 representations of which 24 are raising objection to the proposal and one is deemed neutral as an informative and a further 11 in support.  A further response was received late on 22 November 2022 from Catherine Wilson of Port Charlotte, indicating that the whole of the settlement of Port Charlotte should have been neighbour notified which was noted but not in line with procedures.  Issues about the domestic water supply being compromised and concerns regarding ferries, employment, housing and landscape impacts were also raised.   These concerns had previously been raised by other objectors and were addressed in the report. 

A development at this location would not ordinarily be supported by the provisions of policies LDP DM1 and SG LDP BUS2, however, the Applicant has satisfactorily set out a location/operational need for the development at this location in the absence of any readily identifiable, sequentially preferable alternative. 

It is considered that the proposal will deliver sustainable economic development within an ‘economically fragile area’ in a manner which, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by third parties, will not give rise to any unacceptable, or significant adverse effect upon the receiving environment.

LDP Policy DM1 requires an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE) to be carried out for large scale development within the countryside.  However, this proposal is an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Development which contains a Landscape and Visual impact Assessment undertaken in accordance with The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.  This is a more robust analysis which is undertaken by professional landscape architects and in these circumstances an ACE carried out by the Planning Officer is considered to be unnecessary.  Taking account of the above, it is considered that this would represent a justifiable minor departure from Policy LDP DM1.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted as a minor departure from Policy LDP DM1, subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report.

Decision

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission as a minor departure from Policy LDP DM1, subject to the following conditions and reasons:

1.    PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 21/12/21; , supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Clarification of Use Approved

2.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the buildings hereby approved shall be used solely as production and storage of whisky and other spirit, and attendant administrative and visitor related uses and no other use including any other purpose in Class 6 and Class 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.  Furthermore, the storage building hereby approved shall be used solely for the storage of whisky and other spirit distilled on the island of Islay. A detailed inventory of the contents of the building shall be kept and all reasonable opportunity for the inspection of this inventory shall be afforded, by prior arrangement, to any designated representative of the council in pursuance of their duties in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of this planning condition.

Reason: In order to define the authorised use and to underpin the ‘special need’ argument that underlies the justification for the development as a departure to the Development Plan, and to enable the Planning Authority to control any subsequent change of use which might otherwise benefit from deemed permission that might erode the original justification for the development, and to protect the amenity of the locale.

Roads Conditions

3.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1,

(i)    The proposed accesses for use by HGV vehicles shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/001 Rev a.

(ii)   Junctions which will be used by general vehicles only are to be constructed as per the Council's standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/002 Rev a. with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Planning Officer for Helensburgh and Lomond spoke to the terms of the report.  The application site comprises most of the private amenity space to the rear of an existing 2-storey, detached sandstone villa set in large private grounds.  The villa is not listed but forms part of a planned townscape block of five similar villas located within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area.  The proposed development is for the erection of a 4-bedroomed house with a new vehicular access from Barclay Drive.

In terms of statutory consultee responses, Roads have not objected subject to conditions.  Scottish Water do not object in principle but have pointed out that surface water connection into existing Scottish Water combined sewer system would only be allowed in exceptional and justified circumstances.  Helensburgh Community Council do not object to a house being built on this site in principle but have indicated the proposed design “does not do justice to the site or its position on it” and have suggested potential areas for design improvements.  The Community Council supports other objections with regard to the position of the proposed access on grounds, including adverse impact on road safety and the visual impact of the Conservation Area.  In view of the volume of objections received the Community Council have requested that a local hearing be held.  A total of 22 representations have been received from local residents to the proposed development, 19 objections and 3 representations of a neutral nature.  In relation to the assessment of this application proposal, Officers consider that, notwithstanding the number of representations, a hearing in this instance would not add value to the process and are not recommending that a hearing be held.  

The proposed development by reason of siting, orientation, scale, massing, form, design, detailing, material finishes and impact upon trees would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and, as such is considered to be an unsustainable form of development, inconsistent with the LDP Settlement and Spatial Strategy.  On the basis of the information currently available, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, that the proposed development can be adequately served by existing public, or proposed private surface water drainage infrastructure which is likely to result in flooding on, and adjacent to, the application site.

The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons detailed in the report.

Decision

The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    Having regard to the siting, scale, massing, form, design detail and external material finishes in relation the proposed development it would be severely detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and the character and appearance of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. The proposed building is to be sited within almost the entirety of the rear private amenity space of a Victorian stone villa forming part of a planned ‘townscape block’ within a conservation area. The proposed house is to be sited in an unduly prominent central location in the centre of the rear garden some 12 metres from the villa and has an unduly large scale relative to the villa such that it would have a wholly inappropriate spatial and formal relationship with the primary built form of the villa to the serious detriment of the setting of the original villa within its historic curtilage. The proposed design is generic in terms of massing, form, design detailing and material finishes that appears to respond to the housing estate development adjacent to the north of the conservation area rather than its immediate context and as such would result in an incongruous and discordant built form with reference to the clear spatial pattern of built development in this part of the conservation area and serve to erode the integrity of the current clear edge between this part of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area and the later 20^th century housing estate development to the north of Barclay Drive.

Given the above, the proposal is contrary to provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 17 and SG on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles which presume against development which is contrary to sustainable development principles identified in the Local Development Plan in terms of adverse impact on built heritage resources and as such is contrary to the Settlement and Spatial Strategy and which with does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing Conservation Area or protect local visual amenity.

2.    The application site comprises an established, maturely landscaped garden in a prominent corner siting with a significant number of trees and large shrubs which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of this edge of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. One of the qualifying features for the conservation area designation is the relationship between large, detached stone villas and their curtilages, often characterised by mature tree planting. The trees within this site play a particularly important role in that they form a natural edge in the transition area between historic built form within the conservation area and modern estate development immediately adjacent to the north of the conservation area boundary. Notwithstanding general comments made in the submitted Design Statement the proposed development will result in the loss of a significant number of trees and large shrubs within the site as a result of the scale and siting of the proposed house and the formation of a new vehicular access and parking/manoeuvring area. No information in the form of a detailed tree impact report based on an accurate tree survey has been submitted to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the proposed development can be implemented without significant loss of trees and large shrubs to the detriment of local visual amenity and to the established character and appearance of this part of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. On the above basis, the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM1, LDP  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

At their meeting on 28 September 2022, the Committee determined that they were minded to grant listed building consent subject to referral of this application to Scottish Ministers in light of formal objections from Historic Environment Scotland.

A report advising that Scottish Ministers have determined that this application would benefit from further scrutiny by an appointed Reporter and Scottish Ministers was before the Committee for information.

Decision

The Committee noted the contents of the report.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 November 2022, submitted)