Agenda and minutes
Venue: by SKYPE
Contact: Lynsey Innis, Senior Committee Assistant; Tel: 01546 604338
No. | Item |
---|---|
Members were asked to suspend Standing Order 5.4 – the Member who is presiding at the meeting must do so from the specified location for the meeting and cannot join by video conferencing. The requisite two thirds of Members present agreed to suspend Standing Order 5.4 to enable discussion of reports on the Agenda. . |
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies for absence intimated. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) Minutes: There were no declarations of interest intimated. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. He explained that no person present would be
entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) and Mr
Jackson who would provide procedural advice if required. He
advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the Local
Review Body (LRB) felt that they had sufficient information before them to come
to a decision on the Review. Both
Councillor Hardie and Councillor Redman agreed that they had. Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he also
felt there was sufficient information to come to a decision on the Review. Councillor
Hardie advised that having considered all evidence he was in agreement with the
Planning Officer that neither the application nor the proposed exceptional case
meets the criteria of the LDP. He
advised that on the basis of the conclusion on page 36 of the agenda pack,
which he read out, he was minded to refuse the
Notice of Review request. Councillor
Redman advised that he was minded to seek a competent motion in order to
approve the request. The
Chair, Councillor Kinniburgh advised that he too was minded to refuse the
request on the same basis as Councillor Hardie that the grounds that neither
the application nor the proposed exceptional case met the criteria of the
LDP. He advised that he believed that
the applicants were aware that the request was against the LDP due to the
comments made in their representation at page 49 of the agenda pack that ‘it is
relatively easy to justify refusal using the prescribed guidelines’. He had
also noted that there had been a study/review undertaken and the designation of
the previous ROAs that had been had identified as having no further capacity to
absorb new development in the open landscape were re-designated as
‘countryside’. The
Chair identified a typing error in page 25 of the agenda pack where the LDP was
detailed as being in 2016 when it should have been 2015. He also advised that
should Councillor Redman be minded to seek a competent motion an Area Capacity
Evaluation would be required to be carried out.
Councillor
Kinniburgh moved that the review be refused on the grounds that neither the
application nor the proposed exceptional case met with the criteria of the
LDP. This was seconded by Councillor
Hardie. Councillor
Redman sought advice on the possibility of proposing a competent motion. Mr Jackson advised that at this stage
Councillor Redman would require to move that the meeting be adjourned until
such time as a competent motion could be reached, and that any such motion
would require to be seconded. Councillor
Redman moved to adjourn the meeting until such time as a competent motion could
be reached. He failed to find a seconder.
Decision: The
Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de
novo, agreed to refuse the appeal subject to the following reasons:- Reason - The site lies within the ‘countryside’
zone of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 within which Policy LDP
DM 1 only supports applications for infill, redevelopment, rounding off and
change of use of existing buildings. An application that fails to meet these
criteria will be refused unless it can demonstrate an exceptional case and then
progress to a successful landscape assessment known as an Area Capacity
Evaluation (ACE). In this instance, the site lies within the garden woodland of the Huf Haus, which is a modern
attractive property that was approved in 2007 when the site lay within a Rural
Opportunity Area (ROA). Subsequent Development Plans in 2009 and 2015 have
placed greater restrictions on this area for development recognising the
landscape value and its contribution to the Isle of Bute Area of Panoramic
Quality (APQ). The wider landscape surrounding the application site is located to the
south of Rothesay and bisected by the Loch Ascog
Reservoir. More specifically, the eastern side of the area is bisected by a
minor road and comprises sloping farmland which rises to 100m Above Ordnance
Datum at the Hill of Ascog. The principal character
of the larger area is as an open landscape comprising rolling pastureland;
however, there are notable areas of woodland that extend in a linear fashion to
the north and south of Mid Ascog and the application
site is located within one of these wooded areas. These wooded areas are a key environmental feature that it is desirable
to protect and the erection of a dwellinghouse on the
subject site would represent an unacceptable degree of intrusion resulting in
an undermining of the structure and character of the landscape to the south of Ascog. On the basis of the foregoing, the application fails the first part of
the policy test which is to meet one of the criteria detailed in the opening
paragraph above. In seeking to demonstrate an acceptable exceptional case, the applicant
has stated that the current house is too large for them and that he and his
wife wish to downsize. He contends that a house in the grounds of the Huf Haus would allow them to
remain in the area. This is not considered an exceptional case as there are appropriate
sites within the settlement zones and Rural Opportunity Areas across the island
that are suitable for development and would allow the applicant to remain in
the area. With this in mind, the applicant has failed to demonstrate an
exceptional case to warrant the support of Policy LDP DM 1 and, as a consequence,
there is no need for the Planning Authority to carry out an Area Capacity
Evaluation. Considering the above, the proposal does not meet the necessary criteria
to be supported through Policy LDP DM 1. Furthermore, failure to demonstrate an
exceptional case means that an ACE does not require being carried out. On the basis that the erection of a dwellinghouse on the subject site would represent an unacceptable degree of ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |