Venue: By Microsoft Teams
Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
Minutes: The Chair, Councillor Gordon
Blair, welcomed everyone to the meeting.Ìý
He explained that no person present would be entitled to speak other than
the Members of the Local Review Body 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 felt that they had sufficient information
before them to come to a decision on the Review. Councillors Brown and Hardie confirmed that following the
site visit they had enough information before them to come to a decision on the
review. Councillor Blair agreed advising that he too felt he had enough
information before him to come to a decision. Councillor Brown moved the following Motion, which was
seconded by Councillor Hardie – There is a general presumption in favour of development
within this area of North Connel, established by current policy but this is
qualified by the requirement to ensure that developments accord with the
existing and established pattern of development and do not result in an
unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact, with an overwhelming
emphasis on respecting the character and setting of the area into which the
individual development proposal is to be located, taking account of local spacing,
layout, densities, privacy and amenity standards. The site the subject of this application is situated to the
rear of a row of established residential properties which front the public road
and in the view of planning, the development of the site with a dwellinghouse
would represent an inappropriate form of backland
development which would be contrary to the established settlement pattern
within the surrounding area which is generally characterised by dwellinghouse
presenting to the public road and therefore it is considered that the proposed
development is contrary to NPF4 Policy 9 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP
STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1 and Policy 01 of pLDP2. It is also considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 due to it
being backland development contrary to the existing
settlement pattern which fails to pay regard to the wider surroundings of the
site in terms of existing character, scale and density and NFP4 Policy 15 due
to it failing to respect the existing established pattern resulting in an
adverse environmental impact. In all other aspects the development either complies with
the policies in LDP2 and NFP4 or any concerns can be mitigated through
conditions. The determining issue in relation to the case is as follows: Whether the proposed site represents an appropriate
opportunity for development with a single dwellinghouse having sufficient
regard to the established settlement pattern of the surrounding area. I’ve considered the aspects that in terms of the general
presumption favour development in the North Connel area and the other matters
that must be taken into account, local spacing, layout, densities, privacy and
amenity standards. Ìý Environmental – the development is considered appropriate in
terms of its type, location and scale such that it will have no unacceptable
impact on the natural environment – page 42 of the pack for the meeting on 27
May where there is a comment in regard to NPF4 Policy 4. Servicing/Access - the site visit showed that access to the
site is by an already established track with a new spur into the site with
water supply via connection to the public water main and drainage via the
installation of a septic tank and soakaway due to the lack of public drainage
infrastructure within the vicinity of the site and as such there are no
servicing or access issues that impact to a degree that mean this application
should be refused. Spacing – the location of the site is adjacent to the
property Lasghair but there is sufficient open space at this location for there
to be no issues with this development going ahead. Layout/design – is covered by condition 4 Densities – no issues due to the open space between the
access track from the C25 and the development. Privacy Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æ– there have been no objections to the proposed
development by the owners of any of the neighbouring properties including Lasgair and Greenloaning Amenity standards – I do not consider that the development
would result in any detriment to the wider landscape. Having considered the information in the agenda packs,
visiting the site and having looked at other locations on the same road to my
mind there is a lot of similarity between developments in those locations and
what is being proposed here. On the basis of my comments above, I am of the view that
albeit technically this proposal could be considered as backland
development, it accords with the existing and established pattern of
development in the North Connel area and does not result in an unacceptable
environmental, servicing or access impact that would mean the proposal should
be refused. I therefore move that this application for planning
permission in principle can be approved as a minor departure from LDP2, NPF4
Policy 9 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, SG LDP ENV 14
and SG LDP HOU 1 and Policy 01 of pLDP2 subject to the conditions and reasons
contained on pages 4 to 8 of the agenda pack for today’s meeting. Mr Jackson confirmed that the Motion before them was
competent. Decision The Â鶹Ãâ·Ñ°æ and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to uphold the request for review and to grant planning permission in principle as per the above Motion. (Motion by Councillor Jan
Brown, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie, tabled) |