Agenda item

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Development Manager spoke to the terms of the report. This application was first presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 20 September 2023 at which time Members agreed to its continuation to a Pre-Determination Public Hearing which was held on 30 January 2024.

The Supplementary Report brought the planning file up to date to include details of a representation submitted from Councillor Julie McKenzie noting her support prior to the application being presented to the September PPSL meeting and also an error in the original Report of Handling, details of which were presented verbally to Members at the beginning of the presentation to the Committee on 20 September 2023.

The Supplementary Report also details the withdrawal of an expression of support and the submission of a late representation.

It was recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to the report of handling.

 

Motion

 

I understand that this development is contrary to the stated intentions of NPF 4 Policy 9(b), and Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 Policies LDP 8 and SG LDP REC/COM 2 and it is not possible to link the development to any of the exemptions that relate to Policy SG LDP REC/COM 2 which would allow the development to comply with the Local Development Plan (LDP) and LDP2.

 

The OSPA has been designated because the open undeveloped space offered a high degree of scenic amenity to the public with views left towards to Connel Bridge and the Falls of Lora and right along Loch Etive.

 

It is suggested in the report of handling that the proposed development will be highly visible from the northern end of Connel Bridge and from the water of Loch Etive under Connel Bridge and the North Connel/Bonawe road and while I accept that may be the case, it is contended that such assessments are subjective and that as the main building will be tucked in against existing development and the remainder of the development is at a level where it will merge into the backdrop of Connel Village and as such the current view from these locations towards the site will not be impacted detrimentally.

 

The scenic amenity primarily encompasses views from and across the site towards Connel Bridge, the Falls of Lora, and along Loch Etive.

 

The open space is currently not easily accessible to the public and there is nothing to suggest that members of the public do access it on a regular basis to take in these views. That said, I am aware that the foreshore beyond the boundary of the site can be accessed via a path to the east of the site.

 

During the site visit, I found it difficult to see many aspects of the Connel Bridge and the Falls of Lora from the pavement, on the main road, adjacent to the site due to the existence of Connel Surgery, the House adjacent to it and the vegetation, trees etc along the road which rises up at that point. It is also not possible to see much of the bridge and the Falls of Lora when driving towards them.

 

In a similar way, when travelling by car in the other direction from Connel Bridge towards the site the road drops down and the views of the Falls of Lora are very limited and the views along Loch Etive are unlikely to be hindered or affected for drivers or indeed people walking along the footpath. It is also notable that the planning committee required to park several minutes walk away from the site, as there is not currently safe parking places in which to adequately view the scenic amenity.

 

It is important to consider that this site visit was carried out during the winter month of February when deciduous vegetation and trees are during a period of abscission, when the leaves are naturally shed, with no examples of marcescence, where the leaves are withering but remain attached to the stem, thus by, the scenic amenity during months when trees and other vegetation are in full canopy or bloom, would be even more restricted than that experienced by the committee during their site visit.

 

The development will create a number of jobs in the area and the business will increase the number of visitors to the area, which is likely to have a positive impact on trade for other businesses in the area, which demonstrates economic benefit will be derived from the development.

 

As it stands, the OSPA creates no beneficial use of the location by the public and by opening up the site with this development, consequently it will ensure direct access to members of the public, locals and visitors and will offer the public the ability to enjoy all the aspects of the OSPA area in a manner which has not previously been available to them.

 

In conclusion, therefore I am of the view that the development has been designed to minimise the impact on the OSPA to a level that will not detrimentally affect the scenic amenity of the location and will enhance it through providing access to the area and the siting of the viewpoint.

 

Therefore, on that basis, I move that the development is approved, subject to conditions and reasons being delegated to the Head of Development and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the PPSL.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, and in order to underpin the justification for departing from the provisions of the Development Plan, such conditions shall include an appropriate mechanism to secure the timely provision and ongoing maintenance of an accessible footpath and viewpoint within the scheme of development, and to ensure that such facilities will be made freely available to the general public without barrier to entry on a permanent basis.

 

 

 

Moved by Councillor Amanda Hampsey, seconded by Councillor Andrew Kain.

 

Amendment

 

The Committee refuse planning permission subject to the reasons appended to the Report of Handling.

 

Moved by Councillor Graham Hardie, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair.

 

As the meeting was being held remotely on Microsoft Teams, the vote required to be taken by calling the Roll and Members voted as follows –

 

Motion                                         Amendment                    

 

Councillor John Armour                Councillor Gordon Blair

Councillor Amanda Hampsey       Councillor Jan Brown

Councillor Andrew Kain                Councillor Audrey Forrest

Councillor Liz McCabe                 Councillor Kieron Green

Councillor Dougie Philand            Councillor Graham Hardie 

Councillor Peter Wallace              Councillor Mark Irvine

                                                   Councillor Luna Martin

                                    

Decision

 

The Amendment was carried by 7 votes to 6 and the Council resolved accordingly.

 

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 September 2023; supplementary report 1 dated 29 January 2024; Minute of the PPSL Committee dated 30 January 2024; Supplementary report number 2 dated 20 February 2024; submitted; Motion by Councillor Amanda Hampsey seconded by Councillor Andrew Kain, tabled; and Amendment by Councillor Graham Hardie, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair, tabled)