Venue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair, Councillor Audrey Forrest, welcomed everyone to the
meeting.Ìý She 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. Referring to the further information requested at the previous meeting
and subsequent comments from interested parties, along with all previous
information submitted, including the information obtained at the site
inspection, she advised that her first task would be to establish if the
Members of the LRB felt that they had sufficient information before them to
come to a decision on the Review. The Members of the LRB agreed that they had sufficient information
before them to come to a decision on the Review. Councillor Forrest put forward the following Motion for consideration: Motion Having
considered all the information provided regarding this application, I
understand the consideration by the planning service in regard to the policies
in NPF4, LDP2, the guidance in the Technical Working Note – Rothesay (2015) and
that published by Historic Environment Scotland. The
main thrust of these policies is that proposed developments should preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area, whilst the guidance
provides advice on window replacements in particular. The
further information provided by the planning service has indicated that the
application doesn’t comply with policy 4 of LDP2 which in summary is, that due
to the double swing method of opening of the windows to the front, they would
appear visually incongruous and discordant, when in the open position and as
far as the windows to the rear are concerned they represent an inappropriate
intervention and as such the whole proposal would detract from the character
and appearance of the building and the wider Rothesay conservation area to an
unacceptable degree and for the same reasons it also does not comply with the
remaining policies 5, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of LDP2. However,
and in no way setting a precedent on how these should be considered in regard
to future similar applications, I am of the view that this application can be
approved as a minor departure from policies 7, 14 and 16 of NPF4 and policies
4, 5, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of LDP2 for the following reasons; 1. Having
undertaken the site visit and seen at first hand the proposed development and
the other properties in the surrounding area, I do not agree with the
assessment of policy 4, as I consider that the windows will be visually
indistinguishable, they will closely match in appearance the windows which are
to be replaced, in all respects, except when open, and as such I am of the view
that they will not be visually incongruous and discordant to such a degree as
to detract from the character and appearance of the building or the wider
Rothesay conservation area to the extent suggested by the planning service. 2. As the
planning service have used their consideration of policy 4 as the evidence to
justify their view that the application doesn’t comply with policies 10, 15, 16
and 17, then my view detailed at 2 above also applies to those policies in that
I do not agree with the assessment by the planning service of policies 10, 15,
16 and 17, although I do accept their assessment of policy 9 in that the
principle of slim-line double-glazed units could equally be used in either
refurbished or replacement sliding sash and case windows to achieve similar
energy efficiency outcomes as the current proposal. 3. In my
opinion, the personal health information provided by the applicant is relevant
and should be given the weight of special circumstances in relation to this
specific application. Disability considerations are not merely about
accessibility to the building but to how fit for use it can be made. The issues
identified with the opening of the current windows which will only be
exacerbated over time, and as the proposed windows will alleviate these issues,
I consider that is justification for the non-conforming opening method due to
the special circumstances of the applicant’s wife. 4. The
state of the current windows is not good and will over time become beyond
economic repair and I do not see the point in waiting for that to happen before
they can be replaced. They currently are not compliant with climate change
interests as they allow hot air out and cold air in. 5. I
would therefore like to move that the application be approved as a minor
departure from policy on the basis of my reasoning above subject to the
conditions and reasons detailed on pages 4 and 5 of the document pack for the
meeting of the LRB on Monday 13 May 2024. Councillor Hampsey said that this was a well written, considered and
comprehensive Motion and that she would be very pleased to second that Motion. Councillor Armour confirmed that he was also happy with the Motion
which, he said, was lengthy but required to be lengthy in order to address all
the points to justify a departure from Policy. Decision The Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æ and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of
the case de novo, unanimously agreed to grant planning permission as a minor
departure from Policies 7, 14 and 16 of NPF 4 and Polices 4, 5, 10, 15, 16 and
17 of LDP2 subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1.
The development to which this permission relates must be
begun not later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In
accordance with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
1997. 2. Unless otherwise directed by Condition 3 below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 7th September 2022; the 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 ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |