Supplementary Pack 2 - Reconvened Meeting 19 March 2024
Argyll and Bute Council · 7 February 2024
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 7 February 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 12 March 2024 RECONVENED MEETING – 19 MARCH 2024 A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE that was ADJOURNED ON WEDNESDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2024 will reconvene ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE MARRIAGE SUITE, HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND CIVIC CENTRE, 38 EAST CLYDE STREET, HELENSBURGH AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS ON TUESDAY 19 MARCH 2024 AT 11.00AM, which you are requested to attend. I enclose herewith Supplementary Report no. 2 which was not included on the Agenda for the meeting held on 7 February 2024. I also enclose the papers considered at the meeting on 7 February 2024 for ease of reference. Douglas Hendry Executive Director 3. MS GAIL CRAWFORD: ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS: 4 WEST LENNOX DRIVE, HELENSBURGH (REF: 23/00652/PP) Reports by Head of Development and Economic Growth (a) Supplementary Report No.2 (Pages 3 - 8) (b) Papers considered at the meeting held on 7 February 2024 (Pages 9 - 50) (c) Procedure Note (Pages 51 - 58) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 23/00652/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Ms Gail Crawford Proposal: Alterations and extensions Site Address: 4 West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AD SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION: This report provides Members with an update following their decision at the 7th February 2024 pre-determination hearing to continue the hearing at a future date. 2.0 ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2: It is highlighted to Members that, subsequent to their decision to continue the hearing, the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) was adopted on 28th February 2024. As of that date, the ‘Development Plan’ for Argyll and Bute (excluding the area covered by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority) is National Planning Framework 4 and LDP2 which require to be applied holistically with preference afforded to LDP2, as the most recent expression of policy, in the event of any conflict between the two policy documents. For the avoidance of doubt, it is also confirmed that the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and its associated Supplementary Guidance are now superseded and should not be afforded significant material weight in the determination of applications. Having regard to the above, the determination of this application now requires to be undertaken with primary reference to NPF4 and LDP2 as the ‘Development Plan’. It is noted that within the main Report of Handling and Supplementary Report number 1, officers had previously taken into account and applied the relevant polices of LDP2 as this was a significant material consideration at that time. The commentary provided by officers confirms that there is no substantive difference between the relevant provisions of the now superseded ABC LDP 2015 and the recently adopted LDP2 in so far as these are relevant to the current application, with the single exception that the policies of LDP2 are generally more favourable of the proposed contemporary extensions. Previously it had been identified that ABC LDP 2015 SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design (section 8.2 part (d)) noted that; Flat- roofed extensions, and multiple dormer window extensions, which give the appearance of a flat roof will not be permitted where they do not complement the existing house style and Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
design. Officers considered that the proposed flat-roofed extensions in this case provided a contrast in design with a clear and deliberate design delineation between the old and the new and welcomed this and considered in this instance the flat-roofed extensions complemented the existing house. So while officers considered the proposal to be compliant with SG LDP 2015, it is now noted that the provisions of ABC LDP 2015 SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design is no longer relevant and that under LDP2 there is no such policy in terms of flat-roofed extensions. As per the commentary within the original Report of Handling, officers consider LDP2 to be more favourable of the design of the proposal. The design policy in LDP2 Policy 10 (Design: All Development) notes that the design of any development must: • Demonstrate an understanding of and appropriate response to the proposed development site and wider context including consideration of character and, where applicable, urban grain; and • Acknowledge the scale, mass and spirit of nearby buildings but steer clear of mimicry and pastiche; and • Incorporate existing and enhancing features where applicable; and • Avoid falsification of period details; and • Use appropriate proportions for building elements and details including, where applicable, massing and fenestration; and • Use materials that are harmonious with the context but embody honesty and legibility of contemporary design; and • Consider the embodied energy and durability of proposed materials; and • Incorporate the use of flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods. This policy puts greater weight on avoiding pastiche designs and falsification of period details and promotes the honestly and legibility of contemporary design. The proposed extensions would therefore comply with these policy’s given the clear delineation between the old and the new as well as the overall ethos of the contemporary design with the applicants not wishing to create a pastiche design that mimics the traditional features of the existing house. In summary, it is confirmed that the adoption of LDP2 does not give rise to any substantive change to the matters considered within the assessment previously undertaken by officers in respect of this particular application. Notwithstanding the adoption of LDP2 during the determination process, the proposal continues to be viewed as consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan (NPF 4 and LDP2) and the recommendation of officers remains that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as appended to the main Report of Handling. 3.0 ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS: It is highlighted to Members, that subsequent to the issuing of supplementary report number 1, which covered any additional representations received after the main report of handling was published, we received further representations. This has resulted in a total of 30 (29 objections and 1 representation). The 2 subsequent representations were both from existing objectors. Details of the comments not addressed within the main report or supplementary report number 1 are as follows; Page 4
Page 5
Objection comments were received from: Further objection from; Alastair Wilson 7 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll and Bute G84 9AQ 07.02.2024 Further objection from; Suzanne Hamilton Whincroft 2A Upeer Colquhoun Street Helensburgh 07.02.2024 Summary of points raised: • Objector notes that the local authority have stated the wrong date that the provisional TPO for the Copper Beech tree within the neighbouring garden came into force within supplementary report number 1. Further notes that the wrong date was input as a deliberate act to mislead members Comment; please see note 4.0 (proposed tree preservation order) below in regards to this and there was no deliberate act to mislead members. • Objector asks if the local authority have investigated the applicant’s claims in terms of tree roots needing to be severed around service runs/pipework. Comment; the local authority have two tree reports one from the objectors and one from the applicants, these reports have been made by qualified arborists and are considered to be expert opinions which have informed the local authorities recommendations in regards to this tree. • Objector comments that the drainage runs which the tree roots are interfering with are now defunct and therefore, there is no reason to disturb the tree roots to this area. Comment; the applicants have only undertaken investigative works to understand what is wrong with the current drainage onsite leading to the issues with water ingress into the property. These works where investigated under a separate enforcement matter and a stop notice was issued. Subsequently the applicant’s submitted drainage plans to show a revised drainage scheme as part of the application. These drawings show the re-use of the drain in this area. Since discovering that the tree roots where in fact interfering with this drain which may be exacerbating the issue with drainage the applicants submitted a revised drainage scheme which would re-route this drain under the proposed two storey extension. This would mean less damage to this tree than if they repaired the drain where it currently lies. • Objector asks how the local authority can approve this application when it clearly impinges on the root protection area of a tree within a Conservation area which is subject of a provisional TPO. Comment; this has been addressed within supplementary report number 1. • Objector passes comments on the applicants tree report as summarised; Objector confirms that the recent branch removal referred to within the applicant’s tree report was undertaken in 2019. Objector notes that the applicants tree report states that the trees roots in the areas where the branch removal occurred would have resulted in the reduction of the trees reliance of these roots, however, the objector states that if this is the case then why these roots are still present and it is not the case therefore, that these roots are important. Objector notes that whilst the tree Page 5
Page 6
roots may be exploiting faulty drains they are reliant not on these drains but upon all of the resources within the root protection area. Objector notes that if these roots are considered to be of secondary importance to the vitality of the tree and that the roots within the development area can and should be severed without significantly damaging the vitality of the tree then why does the British Standard recommend a 652m2 root protection area. Objector notes that in reality the proposed development within the root protection area will impinge upon the tree more extensively than the severing of roots effecting drains. Objector questions why does the British Standard state in Section 7.1.1 that construction within the root protection area should accord with the principle that the tree and soil structure take priority, and the most reliable way to ensure this is to preserve the root protection area completely undisturbed. Lastly the objector notes that the section within the applicants tree report which states "In the following section it is assumed that the design has taken into account the constraints represented by the retained trees and that any conflicts with the vitality of the retained trees has been recognised." is an error as the design was submitted in the absence of a preliminary tree surveys. Comment; these comments are noted, however, we believe these comments have previously been addressed with the main report of handling, subsequent supplementary report number 1 and above. As such our recommendation for approval subject to the revised set of conditions as contained within supplementary report number 1 stand. • Objector has noted that their insurers have advised that ‘in the event of approval of the application, and works commencing on the west side of 4 West Lennox Drive, where there is any subsequent damage to the beech tree, to property and/or persons, our insurers will want to understand the extent of works within the tree root perimeter, the decision making process leading to such works, and the associated insurance position of the parties impacted in order to help our insurers establish any insurance claim position and final liability’ Comment; this is a private civil matter. Note: All other comments are addressed in the main report of handling and subsequent supplementary report number 1. Full details of all representations can be view on the Council’s website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. It is considered that the points that have been made are addressed appropriately above. 4.0 PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER: The proposed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for the copper beech tree within the garden grounds of 2a Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh (the neighbouring property to the application site), which PPSL members recommended approval for on the 18th October 2023 is subject of a TPO as of the 24th January 2024. It was previously advised verbally and within supplementary report number 1 that this TPO would come into effect on the 8th of February 2024, however, this was an error and this date should have been noted as the 24th of January 2024. This error occurred as officers mistook the date the TPO would be published, the 8th of February, as the date it came into force. Subsequent to this there have been a few matters which require rectification in relation to the serving of the TPO. The TPO served contained an error in that the subject tree was incorrectly described as a Cedar Beech and not the correct Copper Beech. The TPO order has been re- Page 6
Page 7
served to all interested parties on the 8th of March 2024, with a covering letter pointing out the error. The TPO order will not be modified at this stage and should the order be confirmed in due course, the revised name of the tree species will be confirmed under modification and this error will be rectified at that time. Please also note that a new advert will appear in the newspaper on Thursday 14th March and a certified copy of the Order will be displayed in the Helensburgh Civic Centre for 28 days for public viewing from this date. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the revised list of conditions and reasons as contained within supplementary report number 1. Page 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 23/00652/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Ms Gail Crawford Proposal: Alterations and extensions Site Address: 4 West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AD SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION: This report provides Members with an update following their decision at the 18th October 2023 PPSL meeting to continue the application for a pre-determination hearing and site visit. The purpose of this report is to update members on various matters that have arisen subsequent to the PPSL meeting as follows; 1) Update members that the proposed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for the copper beech tree within the garden grounds of 2a Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh (the neighbouring property to the application site), which PPSL members recommended approval for on the 18th October 2023 will be the subject of a provisional TPO as of the 08.02.2024. 2) Advise members that additional information has been submitted by the objectors in the form of an arboricultural report which was submitted on the 30.01.2024. The arboricultural report submitted by objectors was commissioned to survey and assess the copper beech tree which lies in the garden grounds of 2a Upper Colquhoun Street. This report is based on the BS (British Standard) 5837 (2012) – Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction, and uses the standard calculation for determining a tree’s root protection area. It is noted within this report that the copper beech tree has been assessed within its current context and without regard to proposed development. This report includes a drawing based on the BS calculations which shows that the root protection area of the neighbouring copper beach tree would include areas within the footprint of the proposed extension and areas where it is proposed to demolish the existing single story element. In theory the root protection area represents a Page 9 Agenda Item 3b
Page 10
construction exclusion zone which could therefore, effect the ability of the applicants to undertake the proposals. It is noted that under section 4.6 of the BS 5837 for single stem trees, the root protection area should be calculated as an area equivalent to a circle with a radius 12 times the stem diameter. The diameter of the copper beech tree has been measured as 1.2m which would equate to a circular root protection area of 14.4m centred on the base of the stem as shown on the arboricultural report supplied by the objectors. This report also goes into specifics about the copper beech tree and summarised that the tree is a mature and healthy tree and that older trees such as this tree are more vulnerable to harm and that the root system of the tree would be damaged by the proposed development which would encroach heavily into the root protection area. Note: Full details of the report can be view on the Council’s website at www.argyll- bute.gov.uk 3) Advise members that further information has been submitted by the applicant by way of a further arboricultural report received on the 05.02.2024. This report was commissioned by the applicants to add more detail, site specific information and to assess the impact the specific development would have on retained trees. This report is in line with the report provided by objectors in terms of the tree’s location and size. When explaining the standard method to calculate a trees root protection area within section 2 of this supplementary report it is noted that the BS, goes into more detail and notes that where pre-existing site conditions or other factors indicate that rooting has occurred asymmetrically, a polygon of equivalent area should be produced in lieu of a standard circular root protection area. The BS then notes that modifications to the shape of the root protection area should reflect a soundly based arboricultural assessment of likely root distribution. Within the arboricultural report submitted by the applicants the root protection area has been adapted to reflect this which has been plotted on the submitted tree constraints plan (contained within this report). During the survey for this report it was found that through probing and some limited excavations in and around the proposed development area, a number of small roots were discovered. One in particular was noted in a position that suggested its enlargement was being promoted by the presence of water from a leaking or defective drain. The report then notes that in the absence of any development proposals it is recommended that the soil volumes around the service runs (of which there are several in this area) be excavated and all roots of any size be cleanly severed. As the discovered roots did not exceed 35mm diameter and were generally less the report notes that in these circumstances the adverse effects on the tree would be minimal. This report also observed that recent works to the tree have resulted in an over 10 branch removal wound on the tree between a height of about 4 metres and 12 metres and that none of these wounds have occluded, and in a tree of this age and species they might never do so. In such situations a tree that is still growing is stature will normally use its full rooting area to muster reserves and water supplies to rapidly replace the lost areas of crown. However, for the surveyed tree the vigour is limited and no increase in stature can be expected. The converse is therefore to be expected, namely that the tree’s reliance on the roots in the quarter where significant crown reduction has been done will reduce. For these reasons it can reasonably be foreseen Page 10
Page 11
that any roots within the development area, over 4 metres form the edge of the crown spread, are of secondary importance to the vitality of the tree. The report then goes on to note that notwithstanding the root protection area that is represented on the tree constraints plan it is the arborists opinion that the roots within the development area can and should be severed without significantly damaging the vitality of the tree. It is also noted that this area is expected to comprise of less than 5% of the root protection area and less than 2% of the total rooting area of the tree and as such, no significant damage to the vitality of the tree can be foreseen. This report then summarises that regardless of the development proposals, it is recommended that all roots in and around and interfering with services in the area adjacent to the existing house be severed. And notes that this can be done using statutory exemptions from conservation area or tree preservation controls. Note: Full details of the report can be view on the Council’s website at www.argyll- bute.gov.uk 4) Advise Members of officer’s response to the above additional tree information – the two arboricultural reports described above. It can be confirmed to members that exemptions apply to works on a tree protected by a TPO and that these works can be undertaken without consent from the planning authority. For reference, the statutory exemptions are contained under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Section 160 part (6)(B) for trees with preservation controls and, The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 Section 8 part (K)(ii) for trees in conservation areas. Based on the above it has been confirmed that the proposed development would encroach on the copper beech tree’s root protection area as detailed using differing methods within both arboricultural reports. The tree protection area is larger than that shown on the original site plan provided by the applicant. This has implications for how to assess the matter of the tree roots in relation to the proposal. The report provided by the applicants has gone into a more detailed assessment and has identified that roots within the development site are effecting services within the site and that these roots require to be cut back and can be cut back without consent. Within this report it has been further noted that due to the historical works to the copper beech tree it is considered that tree’s reliance on the roots where the crown reduction has been undertaken will reduce and for these reasons it can reasonably be foreseen that any roots within the development area, over 4 metres form the edge of the crown spread, are of secondary importance to the vitality of the tree. This coupled with the report’s findings that the roots should be cut back due to impact on drainage/services via an exemption and the area that is expected to be comprised (by either the development, or root cutting via an exemption) would be less than 5% of the root protection area and less than 2% of the total rooting area of the tree. Based on the above the authority is satisfied that the copper beech tree will not be adversely effected by the proposals and therefore our recommendation remains one of approval but subject to the amended recommended conditions as appended to this supplementary report. These conditions can now be tied more closely to the recent arboricultural report and tree constraints plan. To summarise officers have removed condition numbers 8 and 9, and have replaced these with a single condition (now Page 11
Page 12
condition 8) that provides protection to all trees and references the tree survey and arboricultural method statement provided by the applicant. 5) Advise Members that further additional information has been submitted by the applicant on the 05.02.2024. The additional information submitted includes updated plans and elevations to provide clarity on the extent of proposed development. The only changes to the plans is a change to the yellow hatch to show the extent of the proposed developments footprint and the updated location and root protection area of the copper beech tree, there have been no physical alterations to the design of proposals. Further to the above the applicants have also submitted an updated design & access statement and an updated drainage drawing. The only change to the design & access statement is that a section has been added to include an analysis of built form to open space on sites within the Hillhouse, Helensburgh Conservation Area and also a section including examples of two storey side extensions, the conclusions within this statement have also been updated to reflect this. The updated drainage drawing is to reflect the root protection area as shown on the tree constrains plan provided within the applicant’s arboricultural report so that the proposed drainage alterations are out with this area. The updated drawings are as follows; Proposed location / block plans Ref: RDH.AR(PL)010 REV E Proposed ground floor plan Ref: RDH.AR(PL)011 REV D Proposed first floor plan Ref: RDH.AR(PL)012 REV D Proposed roof plan Ref: RDH.AR(PL)013 REV E Proposed south elevation Ref: RDH.AR(PL)014 REV E Proposed west elevation Ref: RDH.AR(PL)015 REV D Proposed north elevation Ref: RDH.AP(PL)016 REV E Proposed east elevation Ref: RDH.AP(PL)017 REV E Proposed drainage drawing Ref: 2302-07-900 REV D Design & access statement REV C Note: Full details of the revised drawings can be view on the Council’s website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk 6) Advise Members for clarity during the PPSL presentation on the 18th October 2023 it was noted by officers that there was an error within the main report of handling in regards to the total built element on the site resulting from the proposals. This has been double checked and the main report of handling as published is correct. To confirm: • the existing house has a foot print of approximately 161sqm, • the existing single storey element which is proposed to be demolished has a footprint of approximately 55sqm, • the existing garage which is proposed to be demolished has a foot print of approximately 30sqm and • the existing sheds which are proposed to be demolished have a combined foot print of approximately 18sqm. This equates to a total existing built element of approximately 264sqm which represents 12% of the overall plot. In comparison the proposals seek to: Page 12
Page 13
• remove the existing single storey element and replace this with a larger 2 storey extension which has a footprint of approximately 90sqm, • replace the existing garage with a larger garage/gym which has a foot print of approximately 70sqm and • lastly the proposals seek to erect a new external link canopy between the new extension and garage/gym which has a foot print of approximately 25sqm. The proposals therefore, equate to the resultant proposed built element on the site as being approximately 346sqm which represents 16% of the overall plot, an increase of 82sqm / 3.8% to the overall built footprint on the site. 7) Advise Members that following the publication of the main report of handling, officers have received further representations. Two of these were verbally addressed during the 18th October 2023 PPSL presentation by officers. However, we have since received two further objections. This has resulted in a total of 30 (29 objections and 1 representation). The main report of handling summarised that there were a total of 29 representations (28 objections and 1 representation). Out of the 4 subsequent representations 1 was from a new party and the remaining 3 were from existing objectors. Details of the contributors and comments not addressed within the main report are as follows; Objection comments were received from: Fiona Baker Hillcroft Station Road Rhu Helensburgh G82 8LW 09.10.2023 Further objection from; Suzanne & Scott Hamilton Whincroft 2A Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh 09.10.2023 Further objection from; John Shelton 3 West Douglas Drive Helensburgh Argyll and Bute G84 9AL 31.01.2024 Further joint objection from; David Henderson, Corinne Henderson, Alistair McLuskey, Liliana Sheychenko, John Butt, Sally Butt, Max Carruthers, Lesley Carruthers, Fiona Baker, Alastair Wilson, Suzanne Hamilton, John Shelton, Sally Shelton 31.01.2024 Summary of points raised: • Objector notes that the local authority have failed to refer to the Helensburgh conservation area appraisal which is a material consideration and that the authority have neglected this documents recommendations. Comment; this is a key document which the design and conservation officer has taken into account and specifically mentions within their consultation responses. The consultation responses from the design and conservation officer are a material consideration which has been taken into account when determining the application. • Objector notes that the computer generated images, as presented at PPSL, are inaccurate and that the scale is wrong and therefore minimises the impact. Comment; please note that these images have been provided by the applicants to best show the proposals massing in 3D, computer generated images do not have a scale as they are 3D and use perspective. The images have been submitted as part of the Page 13
Page 14
application package along scaled 2D plans, elevations and sections to help officers best understand the massing of the design and how this relates to the existing property. • Objector notes that the copper beech tree within the neighbouring garden is shown on the applicant’s drawings is shown in different positions on different plans. Comment; this is noted, however, as we now have a arboricultural report available provided by objectors which shows the trees correct location and size, and a further arboricultural report from the applicant which correlates this. The local authority is satisfied that the tree has been correctly located on the amended plans. • Objector notes that photographs taken by the design and conservation officer where taken from obscure positions which minimise the impact of the proposals. Comment; it is noted that the planning officer, the area team leader and the design and conservation officer where involved in the site visit when these photographs were taken and that the photographs taken were the best available shots and they were in no way taken from obscure positions but from the best available positions at that time to best show the site/context. • Objector notes that the applicant’s drawings are not to scale and this was not addressed within the main report of handling. Comment; this is noted however the original drawings submitted include the required scale bar, scale notation and format size as do the amended ones. • Objector notes that at the PPSL meeting officers incorrectly stated that there had been no objections to the proposed external finish colours and materials Comment; this is noted however, within the main report of handling within section F specific mention under section ‘the summary of issues raised’ explained that this had been raised in regards to the concerns over the proposed external finishes. • Objectors request the local authority ensure that BS 5837 (2012) is applied in full as a condition on any approval. Comment; this is noted and due to the findings as described within the initial section 4 of this report alternative conditions have been recommended which are appended to this report and these ensure compliance with BS 5837. • Objectors note that a tree protection plan including root protection area and tree survey by a qualified person should have been submitted as part of the application to ensure the protection of the neighbouring copper beech tree’s to the standards as set out in BS 5837 (2012). Comment: this is noted however, the drawings submitted with the application indicated that the proposed development was located out with the copper beech trees canopy and could comply with tree and root protection measures as per the BS within the recommended conditions. Given this and the element of separation the authority did not challenge this. Having been presented with further info, we acknowledge that the original tree protection area was incorrect and we have reassessed this and have suggested revised conditions in relation to tree protection. Page 14
Page 15
• Objector notes that planning officers should have requested the above information to best inform their recommendations prior to determination. Comment; as above • Concern that objectors comments in relation to the neighbouring copper beech tree were not fully taken into account by officers within the report of handling (the objector has provided a summary of the combined points raised by all objectors within their representation) Comment; this is noted however, it is confirmed that the full comments are made available to members and public on the councils website, furthermore, these comments have been summarised and addressed within the report of handling. Please also note that the authority’s biodiversity officer was consulted in regards to the proposed tree protection order for the Copper Beech tree which was progressed within the context of this application • Concern that the applicants have not accurately surveyed the copper beech tree and therefore, their measurements and drawings are incorrect. The applicants have shown the root protection area as being 12m however, the objectors arboricultural report notes this dimension as 14.4m. This under sizing could lead to implications in terms of the ability to implement the proposals as the development could be within the copper beech tree’s root protection area Comment: this is noted and as above we acknowledge there was an error in the original submission but subsequently the applicants commissioned a further arboricultural report the details of which have been summarised in section 4 of this report. These findings have informed officer’s recommendations as contained within this supplementary report. • Objector notes that the applicants submitted drawings do not correctly show the; size, location and root protection area of the copper beech tree within the neighbouring garden. Another objector notes a similar point, that the position of the copper beech tree is not correct on the applicant’s submission and is in fact 3.5m out south & west of the real location of the tree. Comment; we now have two arboricultural reports which show the size, location and root protection area for the copper beech tree, this has been taken into account within the recommendations of this supplementary report and we acknowledge that the original plans had some errors that were missed. • Objector notes that the root protection area of the neighbouring copper beech tree extends into the construction zone for the proposals which would negatively affect the tree and no building works should be undertaken within the root protection area of the copper beech tree. Comment: this is noted and subsequently the applicants commissioned a further arboricultural report the details of which have been summarised in section 4 of this report. These findings have informed officer’s recommendations as contained within this supplementary report. Page 15
Page 16
• Objector note that the other trees within the site and on neighbouring properties have also been shown incorrectly on drawings in terms of location, size and root protection areas Comment; The applicant’s arboricultural report notes that even though there are other neighbouring trees and shrubs, either none are within the distance where roots would be affected or they have such a small stem diameter that they do not require to be protected. The report states “there are no other offsite trees that overhang the development area or are located beyond it within a distance of up to 12 times their estimated stem diameter. Several shrub species were noted but generally considered not to come within the remit of the British Standard and individuals would only be recorded if they had the stature of what one would ordinarily call a tree.” • Concern that the recommended safeguarding conditions contained within the report of handling are insufficient to protect the copper beech from harm. Comment; at the time of issuing the main report of handling officers assessed the information that they had before them and recommended the conditions as contained within the main report of handling, subsequently the applicants commissioned a further arboricultural report the details of which have been summarised in section 4 of this report. These findings have informed officer’s recommendations as contained within this supplementary report. • Objector notes that the potential impact on the neighbouring copper beech tree should be a material planning consideration. Comment; the original report of handling makes it clear that this is a material consideration and it remains a material planning consideration. Note: All other comments are addressed in the main body of the report. Full details of all representations can be view on the Council’s website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. It is considered that the points that have been made are addressed appropriately above and within the main report of handling. 8) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the revised list of conditions and reasons appended to this report. Page 16
Page 17
REVISED CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/00652/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 23/04/2023, 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. Plan Title Plan Ref No Version Date Received (PL)001 Existing location plan & Block plan 1 of 33 B 28.07.2023 (PL)002 Existing ground floor plan 2 of 33 A 30.03.2023 (PL)003 Existing first floor plan 3 of 33 A 22.05.2023 (PL)004 Existing roof plan 4 of 33 B 18.09.2023 (PL)005 Existing South elevation 5 of 33 B 18.09.2023 (PL)006 Existing West elevation 6 of 33 B 18.09.2023 (PL)007 Existing North elevation 7 of 33 B 18.09.2023 (PL)008 Existing East elevation 8 of 33 B 18.09.2023 (PL)010 Proposed location plan & Block plan 9 of 33 E 05.02.2024 (PL)011 Proposed ground floor plan 10 of 33 D 05.02.2024 (PL)012 Proposed first floor plan 11 of 33 D 05.02.2024 Page 17
Page 18
(PL)013 Proposed roof plan 12 of 33 E 05.02.2024 (PL)014 Proposed South elevation 13 of 33 E 05.02.2024 (PL)015 Proposed West elevation 14 of 33 D 05.02.2024 (PL)016 Proposed North elevation 15 of 33 E 05.02.2024 (PL)017 Proposed East elevation 16 of 33 E 05.02.2024 (PL)018 Proposed section A-A 17 of 33 A 28.07.2023 (PL)020 Existing window schedule 18 of 33 A 22.05.2023 (PL)021 Proposed window replacements 19 of 33 A 24.04.2023 (PL)030 Existing door schedule 20 of 33 A 22.05.2023 (PL)040 Images of areas for demolition 21 of 33 A 24.04.2023 (PL)050 Existing section A-A 22 of 33 A 18.09.2023 (PL)051 Existing section B-B 23 of 33 A 18.09.2023 (PL)052 Proposed section C-C 24 of 33 A 18.09.2023 (PL)053 Proposed section B-B 25 of 33 A 18.09.2023 (PL)054 Proposed section C-C 26 of 33 A 18.09.2023 (PL)055 Proposed section D-D 27 of 33 A 18.09.2023 (PL)056 Proposed section E-E 28 of 33 A 18.09.2023 Proposed drainage drawing 29 of 33 D 06.02.2024 Windows design & access statement 30 of 33 A 24.04.2023 Page 18
Page 19
Design & access statement 31 of 33 C 06.02.2024 Visual impact assessment 32 of 33 A 22.09.2023 Tree survey report 33 of 33 - 05.02.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site samples of the proposed materials to be used for the external finishes of the development hereby granted consent shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any work starting on site. Samples to include; canopy finishes, render finish to external walls, retaining wall finish, garage door finish, perforated 'scalloped' powder coated aluminium cladding finish, roof finish, window frame finish and flashing finish. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings. 3. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site full details of the design of doors/windows to the proposed extension and garage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in the form of drawings at a scale of 1:20. Reasons: To ensure appropriate detailing and to maintain the overall quality and character of the development and the surrounding environment. 4. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site samples of the natural stone proposed to be used for window infills and repairs to the existing building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the existing building match the existing building. 5. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans the window replacements to the existing building shall be vertically sliding timber sash and casement windows. Details of all the windows, including the size of windows, size of mullions, number of astragals, which shall physically divide the window into separate panes, method of opening, depth of recess and colour shall be submitted in the form of drawings scale 1:20 and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to work starting on site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposals do not adversely affect the architectural and historic character of the building. Page 19
Page 20
6. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work commencing on site full details of the proposed reconstruction of the wall ends and any piers or gate posts and gate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which minimises the visual impact of the alterations in the streetscape and preserves as far as possible the integrity of the boundary wall in question. 7. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Development shall not begin until details of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i) location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates ii) Existing landscaping features and trees/vegetation to be retained; iii) soft and hard landscaping works, including the location, type and size of each individual tree and/or shrub iv) programme for completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, for whatever reason are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of the same size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Please note that any hard landscaping proposed shall be permeable as to not impact on the surface water drainage for the site. Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping. 8. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; all trees within and overhanging the application site, must be protected in accordance with methods as set out in BS5837/2012 including the erection of appropriate fencing during and until completion of all site operations and building works. A lesser protection zone will be allowed in relation to the neighbouring copper beech tree as per the approved tree protection plan contained within the Tree Survey Report dated February 2024 prepared by Julian A Morris (doc ref; Issue 240205). The Arboricultural Method Statement as contained within the Tree Survey Report dated February 2024 prepared by Julian A Morris (doc ref; Issue 240205) shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged tree protection monitoring and site supervision, by a suitably qualified tree specialist. Page 20
Page 21
Reason: To safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the site and locality and to avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees. 9. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site, full details of any external lighting to be used within the site or along its access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include full details of the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. Reason: In order to avoid the potential of light pollution infringing on surrounding land uses/properties. 10. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; The first floor glazing to the North elevation (shower room window) and the first floor glazing to the West elevation (behind the proposed screening) of the proposed extension shall be of obscure glass and maintained in perpetuity in obscure glass to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent properties. 11. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site details of the replacement chimney pots to the existing building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposals do not adversely affect the architectural and historic character of the building. 12. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance, including noise/ vibration, dust, and any temporary lighting provided, which may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the demolition / construction process should be undertaken by the applicant. This should include consideration of intended hours of operation, movement of vehicles, use of plant and storage of equipment and materials on site. For all potential sources of nuisance the applicant will be required to provide a management plan with details of suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction does not cause loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 13. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; In order to minimise, as far as necessary, the level of noise and/or vibration to which nearby existing residents will be exposed during the construction process the hours of operation of the site should be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. There should be no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 23/00652/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Ms Gail Crawford Proposal: Alterations and extensions Site Address: 4 West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AD DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Alterations and extensions Ground engineering works to repair and alter surface water drainage within the site ii) Other Specified Operations None (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. ______________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 12/01550/TPO - Felling of one Cypress tree and one Silver Birch tree - Agreed 21.08.2012 18/01894/TPO - Proposed felling of 2 trees- Agreed 13.09.2018 (D) CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Health - Helensburgh And Lomond – 28.09.2023 - No objection subject to conditions Roads Helensburgh And Lomond - 31.07.2023 – No objection Page 23
Page 24
Historic Environment Scotland - 10.07.2023 – No objection – consultation response notes; The Hill House is several streets away, with no inter-visibility with 4 West Lennox Drive, and is not likely to experience any impacts on its setting. As well as Red Towers, we have also considered potential impacts on nearby Category A-listed Brantwoode on Munro Drive West. We have considered how the surroundings of Red Towers and Brantwoode contribute to an understanding, appreciation, and experience of their cultural significance and do not think the proposed extensions at 4 West Lennox Drive would have a significant adverse impact on their settings. Helensburgh Community Council - 10.07.2023 – objection – consultation response summarises; This planning application should be rejected by A&BC. The design of the extension to ‘Redholm’s’ western elevation is unattractive and inappropriate. It will make the house appear lop-sided and destroy the attractive symmetry from its present central relationship with the site overall. And, it is likely there will be serious negative impacts on the amenity of its ‘Whincroft’ neighbours. Finally, it will damage – not enhance – the contribution ‘Redholm’ makes to the HCCA. Because of the strongly-held, vociferous and well-argued opposition from neighbouring residents and with ‘Redholm’ sitting in the HCCA HCC asks that this application be determined by a public hearing of Argyll & Bute Council’s PPSL committee. And not be behind closed doors. The residents deserve no less and have full support of Helensburgh Community Council in their opposition to this planning application. Built Heritage Conservation Officer - 23.06.2023, 03.08.2023, 26.09.2023 & 05.10.2023 – The conservation officer’s key responses are detailed within the main body of this report. (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Listed Building/Conservation Advert Expiry Date: 29.06.2023 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: A total of 29 representations have been received from third parties. 28 of these are objections to the proposal and the remaining one is a representation. i) Representations received from: Objection Suzanne Hamilton Whincroft 2A Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh 07.06.2023, 16.08.2023, 22.09.2023, 05.10.2023 Scott Hamilton Whincroft, 2A Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 07.06.2023, 05.10.2023 Lesley Carruthers Address Not Provided 13.06.2023 Ron Cromar Lower Culverden 2 West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 13.06.2023 Anne Cromar Lower Culverden 2 West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 13.06.2023 Russell Vallance Redtowers 4 West Douglas Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 08.06.2023, 30.08.2023 Sally Butt Upper Culverden 2A West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 13.06.2023, 31.08.2023 Gillian Sproul Redtowers 4 West Douglas Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 08.06.2023, 30.08.2023 Corinne Henderson Brantwoode 4 Munro Drive West Helensburgh G84 9AA 12.06.2023, 05.10.2023 Ruth Munro 2 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 12.06.2023 Page 24
Page 25
David Henderson Brantwoode 4 Munro Drive West Helensburgh G84 9AA 12.06.2023, 20.07.2023, 05.10.2023 Theresa Fury 11 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 01.07.2023 Michael Davis 79 Main Street Ochiltree East Ayrshire KA18 2PE 10.07.2023 Sonia Sharp 17 Harris Grove East Kilbride Glasgow G75 8TU 24.06.2023 John Butt Upper Culverden 2A West Lennox Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 13.06.2023, 31.08.2023 Neil Douglas 4 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AH 15.07.2023 Max Carruthers 5 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 13.06.2023 Alastair Wilson 7 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 04.06.2023, 05.10.2023 Janette Wilson 7 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 12.06.2023 Ruth Munro 2 Upper Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AQ 13.06.2023 Liliana Sheychenko 6 West Munro Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AA 08.06.2023 Mr Garry Sharp 17 Harris Grove East Kilbride Glasgow G75 8TU 23.06.2023 John Shelton 3 West Douglas Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AL 26.06.2023, 18.07.2023, 11.06.2023, 25.09.2023, 28.09.2023, 02.10.2023 San Choi Wong 1 West Douglas Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AL 13.06.2023 Sally Shelton 3 West Douglas Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AL 13.06.2023, 28.09.2023 Sheila Clarke 25 Larchfield Colquhoun Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 01.07.2023 Alistair McLuskey 6 West Munro Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9AA 05.07.2023, 07.06.2023, 24.09.2023, 02.10.2023 Representation Gary Mulvaney No Address Given 16.08.2023 ii) Summary of issues raised: Note that the massing of the proposed extensions is not in keeping with the existing property Comment; Please see full assessment below Concern that the modern extensions will be out of keeping with the existing traditional property Comment; Please see full assessment below Concern about the impact of the proposals on the setting of the nearby A listed properties as well as the neighbouring B listed property Comment; Please see full assessment below Note that the footprint of the proposed extension and garage will negatively affect the existing surface water drainage for the site Comment; The applicants have submitted drainage plans which indicate proposed repairs and alterations to the existing drainage which are considered acceptable. The increased size of the built element on the site is approximately 80sqm which is not considered to be significant enough to result in the requirement for additional surface water drainage Concern that the proposed drainage for surface water is insufficient Comment; Plans have been submitted to show a re-routed and repaired method of surface water drainage for the site which will tie back into the existing surface water drainage for Page 25
Page 26
the site. I have been to site and viewed the issues with the current broken surface water drainage and I am content that the proposed alterations to reinstate this are sufficient. As this is a proposed extension and not a new build there is no requirement for the applicants to install a new SUDS system. They do however require consent to alter the existing drainage which is broken given this involves engineering works. They intend to do this by digging a new french drain at the rear of the site to pick up the broken field drains which where discharging water into the solum of the property and then route the new field drain to the front of the property to tie in with the existing drainage discharge Concern that the existing combined sewerage pipe could be compromised by the proposed repairs and alterations to surface water drainage Comment: this is noted however, should this occur then this would be a private civil matter Concern that the proposed hard landscaping will cause further issues with surface water drainage Comment: this is noted and I would note that a safeguarding condition should be added to the decision notice requiring that a scheme of hard and soft landscaping is submitted to and approved by the authority prior to works starting on site and that any hard landscaping proposed must be permeable Concern that the proposed extension and drainage works will affect the roots of an important copper beach tree located within the neighbouring garden Comment; This is noted and I have visited the site to understand where the extension will lay in relation to the tree roots. It is confirmed that the proposed extension is out with this trees canopy. However, a safe guarding condition will be added to the decision notice requiring that this tree is protected at all times during construction works. It is also noted that a TPO is being sought by the authority to further safeguard this tree Concern that the proposed extension will result in the overshadowing and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties Comment; Please see full assessment below Note that trees have been removed within the proposals site without consent Comment; This is being dealt with as a separate enforcement matter Note that the property is not as neglected as the application portrays Comment; I have visited site and viewed the property both internally and externally and therefore have a good understanding of the current state of the property to inform my recommendations Note that the existing rooms on the floor plans are mislabelled by way of an existing study being marked as a bathroom Comment; As the property is not listed any internal alterations to the existing property do not require consent Concern that the trees indicated on submitted plans are not correctly shown Comment; I have visited the site and therefore have a good understanding of the existing trees within the site and surrounding the property Concern in regards to unauthorised ground works that have taken place on the site and are yet to be rectified Page 26
Page 27
Comment; This is being dealt with as a separate enforcement matter Concern that the drawings submitted do not show the finished external ground levels on the site in particular to the rear where the unauthorised ground works have taken place Comment; The applicants have provided updated sections which adequately show the proposals for these areas Concern that the viewpoints used by the applicants in showing the impacts of the proposal on the wider conservation area are inaccurate Comment; I have visited the site and the surrounding conservation area with the design and conservation officer and therefore have a good understanding of the surrounding conservation area and viewpoints used and do not consider the viewpoints used by the applicant to be inaccurate Note that neighbours would request a site visit from committee members so they best understand the site prior to determining the application Comment; This is noted and members will be informed that this has been requested Note that neighbours also request a public hearing to voice their concerns Comment; This is noted and members will be informed that this has been requested however, we are not recommending this Concern that extension will overlook neighbouring properties and in particular the first floor terrace will overlook the front garden and bedroom window of Whincroft (2a Upper Colquhoun). Comment; Please see full assessment below Concern that the property might be sub-divided in the future Comment; no subdivision has been applied for or indicated at this time. Should the applicants chose to peruse this in the future, this would result in the need for a further application Concern that the proposals will harm the character of the surrounding conservation area Comment; The design and conservation officer as well as Historic Environment Scotland have been consulted on the proposals and I will summarise their views in my assessment below Concern that the precedents used by the applicants within their submission are not within the immediate conservation area Comment; This is noted Concern that the setting of the A listed Hill House will be effected by the proposals indirectly as visitors will pass the site on route to the Hill House and this has not been considered Comment; Historic Environment Scotland have been consulted on the proposals (summary of their comment in Section D above and I will summarise their views in my assessment below in relation to the setting of the Hill House Concern that the planting within the site does not positively contribute to the wider conservation area Page 27
Page 28
Comment; A safe guarding condition will be appended to the decision notice to require that a scheme of planting is submitted to and approved by the authority prior to works starting on site. It is further noted that the bio-diversity officer will be consulted on this Note that the drainage is shared within neighbouring title deeds Comment; this is a private civil matter Concern that the perforated metal cladding which is to be used on section of the first floor extension will affect the privacy of neighbouring properties Comment; This is noted however it is not considered that this material will allow the glazing to act as a window as it is a form off screening. A safeguarding condition will be added to the decision notice requiring samples of all external materials are submitted to and approved by the authority prior to work starting on site and a further safeguarding condition will be added to require that the gazing behind this screening is to be opaque Concern about the scale of the extensions in terms of overdevelopment of the plot as a whole Comment; This is noted however, the proposed extensions are not considered to be overdevelopment of the site as the resultant built element on the site is not more than 33% of the overall site Note that the removal of the existing chimneys, removal of the existing single story extension and alterations to the existing apex roof will affect the character of the existing property and wider conservation area Comment; Please note that the applicants have amended their proposals and have omitted the proposed roof alterations, they have also amended the design to show to the retention of the two front chimneys, please see full assessment below for further details on this Note that the revisions to retain two of the chimneys is still not acceptable Comment; Please see full assessment below Concern about the proposed repairs to the stonework Comment; Please see full assessment below, it is also noted that any replacement to the stonework will require samples by way of a recommended condition and that no consent is required to undertake repairs to the property as it is not listed such as the proposed lithomix repairs Concern that the proposed rear canopy will affect the central stained glass window to the rear elevation Comment; This is noted however the applicants have submitted drawings to show that the canopy proposed will not harm the stained glass window as it is set proud Concern that approval of this application would set a precedent Comment; This noted however each application is assessed on its own merits Note that the flat roof extensions are not in keeping with the surrounding conservation area or the existing property Comment; Please see detailed assessment below Page 28
Page 29
Note that the proposed external materials are not in keeping with the existing building or wider conservation area and note that traditional material should be used Comment; Please see detailed assessment below Note that the existing detached garage should not be demolished to preserve the character of the conservation area Comment; The existing garage is not considered to enhance the wider conservation area and is of low quality design, the replacement of this garage with a more appropriate alternative would be considered to enhance the wider conservation area Concern that the proposed garage is larger in scale, has a flat roof and does not have the same level of separation that the existing garage affords Comment; Please see detailed assessment below Concern that the proposed gym which is close to neighbouring properties will result in noise Comment; Environmental health have been consulted and have raised no objection in this regard Note that the internal fireplaces could be lost Comment; the existing property is not listed therefore no permission is required for any internal alterations Note that the existing windows are in good condition and do not require replacement Comment; this is noted however I have visited site and viewed the condition of the windows in person, the proposed replacements as detailed are timber sash and case replicas but with double glazing, these are considered to be high quality Note that the applicants have noted that no trees or on or adjacent to the proposals on the application from and that the drawings showing trees are also incorrect Comment; I have visited the site and therefore have a good understanding of the existing trees within the site and surrounding the property and please see the detailed assessment below Note that the property is not in the sole ownership of the applicant as indicated on the application form Comment; This is a private civil matter Note that the application form also notes that no work has started on site and this is not correct as ground works have begun Comment; This is noted and the unauthorised works are being dealt with as a separate enforcement matter Concern that the proposals will negatively affect the daylight levels to surrounding properties Comment; Please see full assessment below Note that one of the gate posts has been dismantled and set aside Page 29
Page 30
Comment; this is noted, the applicants have updated the drawings to show this gate post being reinstated on completion of the works Note that the removal of two number windows to the East Elevation of the existing building is unacceptable Comment; Please see full assessment below Note that the original internal ceiling details should not be lost Comment; the existing property is not listed therefore no permission is required for any internal alterations Concern in regards to the use of the temporary enclosure of the Hill House as a design precedent Comment; This would not be taken into account as this is a temporary structure Query as to how far the proposed extension will be to the adjacent properties boundary Comment; Drawings indicate that the ground floor of the proposed extension will be approximately just over 5m from the boundary Note that the boundary hedge as shown on the drawings is in joint owner ship and not in the sole ownership of the applicants property’s as indicated on the drawings Comment; This is a private civil matter Note that the original ridge tiles should not be replaced with zinc Comment; Please see full assessment below Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION i) Environmental Statement: N/A ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: N/A iii) A design or design/access statement: The applicants have provided a summary of their proposals within the opening statement of their original and revised D&A statement as follows; The proposal is a full internal refurbishment and large contemporary extension to the rear of an unlisted Victorian villa which sits in the Hill House Conservation Area. The existing property consists of a series of grand rooms with significant decorative features, arranged in a formal manner reflective of the time in which it was built. In addition to a full renovation of the existing building to suit a growing family, the client’s brief required a new open-plan, light filled kitchen and dining space suited to modern living, with a connection to the garden. The main design changes are proposed for the ground floor. We propose the removal of the existing extension to the north-west corner of the property, allowing us to radically transform the internal space, opening up the corner of the site to create a large central heart to the new home. This new generous open-plan layout will aim to rationalise how one moves and circulates throughout the house, which currently is disadvantaged by the disconnected cellular spaces of the traditional layout. Albeit striking, the scheme seeks to deliver a balanced contemporary interpretation of a house extension to a traditional Scottish Architecture that reflects and respects the original Page 30
Page 31
guise of the building by modernising, yet not overpowering it. To create such a building of this flexibility, a high level of nuanced design in terms of materiality and massing articulation had to be considered. There are also a number of holding works we have proposed to the house to ensure its long term survival; - Removal of redundant chimneys - Localised roof repairs - Refurbishment / Replacement of existing windows - Localised Sandstone repairs - Damp treatment This document also includes; a contextual analysis, an overview of the proposals, a visual impact assessment and the proposed tree protection measures. iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: N/A (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: N (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: N (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design Local Development Plan Schedules ‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March Page 31
Page 32
2016 & December 2016) Natural Environment SG LDP ENV 6 – Impact on Trees / Woodland Historic Environment and Archaeology SG LDP ENV 16(a) – Impact on Listed Buildings SG LDP ENV 17 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas (SBEAs) SG LDP ENV 18 – Demolition in Conservation Areas Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Resources and Consumption SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The Examination by Scottish Government Reporters to the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 has now concluded and the Examination Report has been published (13th June 2023). The Examination Report is a material consideration of significant weight and may be used as such until the conclusion of the LDP2 Adoption Process. Consequently, the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 as recommended to be modified by the Examination Report and the published Non Notifiable Modifications is a material consideration in the determination of all planning and related applications. Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Sustainable Communities Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) High Quality Environment Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No EIA is required. Page 32
Page 33
(L) Has the application been subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No Pre-application consultation required . (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: N/A (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (O) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (P)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Conservation Area • Listed Buildings (P)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? N/A (P)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? N/A (P)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Brownfield ABC LDP 2015 Settlement Strategy Main Town Settlement Area ABC pLDP2 Settlement Strategy Settlement Area ABC LDP 2015 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A ABC pLDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P)(v) Summary of Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations: Site Description Planning permission is sought for the alterations and extensions to an existing detached two storey traditional villa located at; 4 West Lennox Drive, Helensburgh. The existing property is located within the Helensburgh Hill House Conservation Area and is directly adjacent to a category B listed property. Located on the opposite side of the street from the site is A listed Brantwoode and adjacent to this is B listed Strathmoyne. Furthermore, located on the street behind the site is A listed Red Towers and adjacent to this is B listed Tordarroch. It is noted that historically the site was subdivided and a modern dwelling was Page 33
Page 34
built within the rear garden grounds. The area surrounding the property is a well- established residential area consisting of several listed properties as noted above, set with large plots as well as some modern dwellings which have been built within the garden grounds of the original villas. The house plot measures approximately 2165sqm, the existing house including the single storey element has a footprint of approximately 216sqm, with the single storey element having a footprint of 55sqm. The existing garage has a footprint of approximately 30sqm and the timber sheds have a combined footprint of approximately 18sqm bringing the total built element on site to approximately 264sqm. The existing house is sited towards the rear of the plot with a large front garden. The site gently slopes downhill from North to South. Proposal Description The proposal seeks to remove the single storey hipped roof element and replace this with a new two storey extension. This proposed extension has a footprint of 90sqm whereas the original single storey element had a foot print of 55sqm. The proposal also sees to remove the existing garage which has a footprint of 30sqm and replace this with a larger garage / gym which has a footprint of 70sqm. The proposal also seeks to introduce a covered external ‘link’ canopy between the garage / gym and the new extension, this has a footprint of 25sqm. The proposals also seek to remove the timber garden sheds. In summary the resultant total built element on the site would be approximately 346sqm in lieu of the 264sqm at present (an increase of 82sqm). This would represent less than 20% of the site being built up which is well under the 33% threshold considered to be overdevelopment. It is also noted that the footprint of the proposed first floor of the extension extends to approximately 50sqm. The single storey elements of the proposals have a roof height of 3.2m and the two storey element has a roof height of 6.4m. In contrast the existing single storey element has an eaves height of approximately 2.5m and a ridge height of approximately 4.3m. It is also proposed to alter the existing property on site by replacing 35 existing windows, repairing any stained glass windows, repairing the existing masonry / render, repairing / replacing the existing cast iron rainwater goods to match existing, removal of two first floor windows to West elevation and openings infilled with reclaimed sandstone, removal of existing ground floor window opening to West elevation and opening to be utilised as an internal doorway into the proposed extension, removal of a double ground floor window to North elevation and opening infilled with reclaimed sandstone, removing two of the four chimneys and also roof repairs including lead repairs and replacement, replacement of the existing cement ridge tiles with zinc ridge sheets and replacement of the existing chimney pots. It is noted that the applicants have revised their proposals as originally they had sought to remove three chimneys and had also sought to alter the roof design. The proposals have been revised to omit the originally proposed roof design alterations and also now seek to remove two chimneys as opposed to the three originally applied for. The proposed window replacements are double glazed timber sash and case to match the design of the originals. The proposed external finishes for the extensions and garage are as follows; external walls including retaining walls (ground floor) - muted pink colour external render finish, external walls (first floor) - perforated 'scalloped' powder coated aluminium sheets colour muted green, external canopy - dark weathering steel finish, flat roofs - dark grey Sarnafil, windows – framed PPC aluminium, first floor terrace balustrade – glazed and roof flashing to garage - PPC flashing to colour match external canopy. Summary of Assessment The proposed extensions and replacement garage are located to the sides and rear of the existing property. In terms of the design of the proposed extensions these are Page 34
Page 35
contemporary in materials and massing and seek to create a clear and defined stance on what is new and what is old. In this regards the following polices are considered. It should be noted that the full assessment is contained within Appendix 1 of this report. NPF4 Policy 14 sets out 6 qualities of successful places. Of particular note is ‘Distinctive – supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity.’ NPF4 Policy 16 states that householder developments will be supported where they ‘do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials’. LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles requires that the development should integrate into the existing built form, and also to reflect the character of the original dwellinghouse. Furthermore the design and conservation officer has noted within her consultation response that; ‘LDP2 design policy has changed from the current LDP and is generally more supporting of contemporary design. Rather than requiring that the character of the original dwellinghouse is reflected, LDP2 Policy 10 requires that development responds appropriately to the site and wider context but that materials are legible as being contemporary design. Additionally, LDP2 places a requirement to consider the embodied energy and durability of proposed materials.’ The proposed new extension seeks to use the heavier appearing finishes to the ground floor with the lightweight materials to the first floor. This is to make the design appear lighter as it increase a storey. This coupled with the reduced footprint of the propped first floor and the set back at first floor allows the proposed first floor extension to appear subservient to the existing property and does not dominate it. NPF4 policy 7 (d) requires that the character and appearance of the conservation area be preserved or enhanced. It sets out relevant considerations of: architectural and historic character; existing density, built form and layout; and context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials. LDP SG ENV 17 also requires that the character or appearance of the conservation area be preserved or enhanced, and LDP2 Policy 17 is substantially the same. In terms of the proposed window replacements I would the design and conservation officer has provided comments on this and notes; ‘There is a preference for retaining historic windows where possible however the policy test is whether the proposal preserves the character or appearance of the conservation area. In this case I must concede that suitable replacements could be fitted without being contrary to this policy. To clarify, the house makes a contribution towards Helensburgh’s conservation area but as it is an individual house type rather than a uniform townscape block, and as the building is not listed and there is no requirement to preserve the special historic or architectural interest of the building, whether or not the existing windows remain and are repaired, or new high quality windows that have a similar appearance, will not affect the overall character or appearance of the conservation area.’ In relation to the existing building and in terms of the removal of the existing single storey element along with the existing non-original detached garage the Design and Conservation Area officer has further noted; ‘Justification has been provided in terms of the viability of repair of the garage and side extension including the limited potential of thermal upgrades. In this case I therefore have no further comment on, or objection to, their removal.’’ In terms of the proposed alterations to the existing building is it considered that these when considered cumulatively do not have an adverse effect on the character of the existing Page 35
Page 36
property nor on the wider conservation area. Again the design and conservation officer has further comment on this as follows; ‘The policy test is whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and whether it would preserve the character, special architectural or historic interest of the setting of any listed buildings. As noted in my consultation responses I feel that the design of the contemporary extension is well thought through and is a positive contribution within the conservation area. I have had concerns over chimney removal and roof reconfiguration and these have been discussed with the agent. The planning officer and myself agreed that the cumulative impact pushed the change in character and appearance to be contrary to policy, however the settled proposal of retaining 2 chimneys and the rear roof reconfiguration is in my view, satisfactory in policy terms as the overall character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. Whilst the contemporary extension obviously changes the appearance of the house, I believe that it is complimentary and complies in policy terms with NPF4 Policy 7 (d) and LDP2 Policy 16.’ External landscaping has also been proposed which is mix of dark and light grey pavers and concrete along with raised planting beds and areas of indicated planting. This information is limited and I would propose to attach a safeguarding condition to any approval requiring that a scheme of hard and soft landscaping is submitted to and approved by the authority prior to works starting on site. This would include any planting which would be considered by the biodiversity officer. I would also note that any hard landscaping would require to be permeable as to not affect the surface water drainage. A retaining wall is also proposed along the Northern boundary that will return around the East and West boundaries to the rear of the existing property. Within the site there are approximately 12 trees that bound the eastern boundary, a single large tree at the southern boundary and 3 trees along the western boundary, no works or removals have been proposed to any trees within the site. In terms of the existing trees on site and any neighbouring trees that may be effected by the proposals such as the large copper beach tree within the adjoining garden of 2 Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh which will have its roots within the sites boundary, it is recommended that these trees will be protected by safeguarding conditions that special protection measures are put in place and maintained during all construction as follows; no excavation shall be undertaken below the canopy of any tree to be retained including the neighbouring copper beach tree and that a 1.2 metre high fence is to be erected at least one metre beyond the canopy of each tree to be retained including the neighbouring copper beach tree. It is noted that Historic Environment Scotland have been consulted on the proposals due to the possible effects on surrounding listed properties and they have noted; ‘The Hill House is several streets away, with no intervisibility with 4 West Lennox Drive, and is not likely to experience any impacts on its setting. As well as Red Towers, we have also considered potential impacts on nearby Category A-listed Brantwoode on Munro Drive West. We have considered how the surroundings of Red Towers and Brantwoode contribute to an understanding, appreciation, and experience of their cultural significance and do not think the proposed extensions at 4 West Lennox Drive would have a significant adverse impact on their settings.’ NPF4 Policy 16 and LDP SG Sustainable siting and design guide require that proposals do not have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing or overlooking. It is considered that the proposed extensions will not effect daylight into neighbouring properties or gardens by way of overshadowing as they are set back far enough from the boundaries that when the 45 degreed daylight test is applied the existing hedge screening mitigates any potential impacts including the first floor element. It is also noted that window to window and privacy issues have been considered and I would confirm that following; there are no privacy issues arising form the proposed areas of additional glazing from the front elevation, there are no privacy issues arising on the East elevation as no additional glazing is proposed, to the rear at ground level a double window will be removed and a large area of glazing installed to the proposed extension this will not create any privacy issues as there is existing screening along the Northern boundary and to the Page 36
Page 37
first floor of the proposed extension glazing is proposed to the new shower room which is over 18m from the neighbouring property to the rear, furthermore, the shower room is not a habitable room (a safeguarding condition is proposed to require that this window be of opaque glazing), to the West elevation at ground level glazing is proposed to the gym this is over 18m from neighbouring properties and glazing is also proposed to the ground floor extension, the existing extension to be removed had glazing on this elevation also and the new glazing is successfully screened by existing planting, lastly to the first floor of the proposed extension on the West elevation perforated steel cladding is proposed, this cladding is a form of screening and is not considered to create any issues with privacy (a safeguarding condition has been recommend to request samples of this material to be approved prior to works starting on site – this again will be to ensure that this screening is adequate it is also recommended that a safeguarding condition is added that requires the glazing behind this section of screening be opaque), furthermore, two existing windows are to be removed from this elevation which again mitigates privacy concerns. Lastly the first floor terrace that is proposed is minimal in size and is screened by the existing large copper beach tree located within the neighbouring garden (subject to separate TPO consideration), furthermore, there is an existing level of overlook from the first floor windows, therefore, the limited additional element of overlooking is considered to be within acceptable limits. Lastly, I would add that during the determination process the applicants have submitted plans to show a re-routed and repaired surface water drainage scheme for the site. It is noted that consent is not required for the repair of existing drainage but is required if there are proposed alterations to this. As such the applicant has submitted drawing to show the surface water drainage alterations. I have been to site and viewed the issues with the current broken surface water drainage and I am content that the proposed alterations to reinstate and alter this are sufficient. As this is a proposed extension and not a new build there is no requirement for the applicants to install a new SUDS system. The submitted drawings show a new french drain running along the northern boundary of the rear site to pick up the broken field drains which where discharging water into the solum of the property and then route the new field drain to the front of the property to tie in with the existing drainage discharge. These proposals would accord with NPF4 Policy 22, SG LDP SERV 2 and LDP2 Policy 61. To summarise the proposed extensions and replacement garage are not considered to be overdevelopment of the site, the proposed design is considered to be subservient to the donor house as does not dominate it, the clear and deliberate design delineation between the old and the new is welcomed as is in line with policy, the proposed materials are high quality and respect the character of the existing property and wider conservation area, it is not considered that the proposals negatively affect the setting of surrounding listed properties and it is considered that this contemporary extension to a traditional villa is in keeping with the character of the wider conservation area and successfully enhances it. Furthermore, the proposals raise no issues in terms of overlooking, loss of daylight / privacy or amenity to surrounding properties. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with NPF 4 polices; 1, 2, 3, 6, 7,14, 16 and 22 and Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 6, SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17, SG LDP ENV 18, SG LDP SERV 2 and SG LDP - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll & Bute Council Local Development Plan as well as Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15, 16, 17, 61 and 77 of LDP 2. Taking account of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. ______________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or a Planning Permission in Principle should be granted: The proposal accords with NPF 4 polices; 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 16 and 22 and Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 6, SG LDP ENV 16(a), SG LDP ENV 17, Page 37
Page 38
SG LDP ENV 18, SG LDP SERV 2 and SG LDP - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Argyll & Bute Council Local Development Plan as well as Policies 01, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15, 16, 17, 61 and 77 of LDP 2 and there are no other material considerations which would warrant anything other than the application being determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: No Departure (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Emma Jane Date: 18.09.2023 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Area Team Leader Dated: 29.09.2023 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 38
Page 39
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/00652/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 23/04/2023, 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. Plan Title Plan Ref No Version Date Received (PL)001 Existing location plan & Block plan 1 of 32 B 28.07.2023 (PL)002 Existing ground floor plan 2 of 32 A 30.03.2023 (PL)003 Existing first floor plan 3 of 32 A 22.05.2023 (PL)004 Existing roof plan 4 of 32 B 18.09.2023 (PL)005 Existing South elevation 5 of 32 B 18.09.2023 (PL)006 Existing West elevation 6 of 32 B 18.09.2023 (PL)007 Existing North elevation 7 of 32 B 18.09.2023 (PL)008 Existing East elevation 8 of 32 B 18.09.2023 (PL)010 Proposed location plan & Block plan 9 of 32 C 18.09.2023 (PL)011 Proposed ground floor plan 10 of 32 B 28.07.2023 (PL)012 Proposed first floor plan 11 of 32 B 28.07.2023 (PL)013 Proposed roof plan 12 of 32 C 18.09.2023 (PL)014 Proposed South elevation 13 of 32 C 18.09.2023 (PL)015 Proposed West elevation 14 of 32 C 18.09.2023 (PL)016 Proposed North elevation 15 of 32 C 18.09.2023 (PL)017 Proposed East elevation 16 of 32 C 18.09.2023 (PL)018 Proposed section A-A 17 of 32 A 28.07.2023 (PL)020 Existing window schedule 18 of 32 A 22.05.2023 (PL)021 Proposed 19 of 32 A 24.04.2023 Page 39
Page 40
window replacements (PL)030 Existing door schedule 20 of 32 A 22.05.2023 (PL)040 Images of areas for demolition 21 of 32 A 24.04.2023 (PL)050 Existing section A-A 22 of 32 A 18.09.2023 (PL)051 Existing section B-B 23 of 32 A 18.09.2023 (PL)052 Proposed section C-C 24 of 32 A 18.09.2023 (PL)053 Proposed section B-B 25 of 32 A 18.09.2023 (PL)054 Proposed section C-C 26 of 32 A 18.09.2023 (PL)055 Proposed section D-D 27 of 32 A 18.09.2023 (PL)056 Proposed section E-E 28 of 32 A 18.09.2023 Proposed drainage drawing 29 of 32 C 28.07.2023 Windows design & access statement 30 of 32 A 24.04.2023 Design & access statement 31 of 32 B 28.07.2023 Visual impact assessment 32 of 32 A 22.09.2023 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site samples of the proposed materials to be used for the external finishes of the development hereby granted consent shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any work starting on site. Samples to include; canopy finishes, render finish to external walls, retaining wall finish, garage door finish, perforated 'scalloped' powder coated aluminium cladding finish, roof finish, window frame finish and flashing finish. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings. 3. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site full details of the design of doors/windows to the proposed extension and garage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in the form of drawings at a scale of 1:20. Reasons: To ensure appropriate detailing and to maintain the overall quality and character of the development and the surrounding environment. 4. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site samples of the natural stone proposed to be used for window infills and repairs to the existing building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 40
Page 41
Reason: To ensure that the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the existing building match the existing building. 5. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans the window replacements to the existing building shall be vertically sliding timber sash and casement windows. Details of all the windows, including the size of windows, size of mullions, number of astragals, which shall physically divide the window into separate panes, method of opening, depth of recess and colour shall be submitted in the form of drawings scale 1:20 and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to work starting on site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposals do not adversely affect the architectural and historic character of the building. 6. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work commencing on site full details of the proposed reconstruction of the wall ends and any piers or gate posts and gate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner which minimises the visual impact of the alterations in the streetscape and preserves as far as possible the integrity of the boundary wall in question. 7. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Development shall not begin until details of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i) location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates ii) Existing landscaping features and trees/vegetation to be retained; iii) soft and hard landscaping works, including the location, type and size of each individual tree and/or shrub iv) programme for completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. All the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing as may be comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, for whatever reason are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of the same size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Please note that any hard landscaping proposed shall be permeable as to not impact on the surface water drainage for the site. Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping. 8. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; During construction work on site, including the laying of services, no excavation shall be undertaken below the canopy of any tree to be retained including the copper beach tree located within the neighbouring garden of 2 Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh who's roots and canopy are partially within the application site. Reason: To ensure that no damage is caused to trees during development operations. Page 41
Page 42
9. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; All existing trees on site shall be protected at all times during the construction period by means of the erection of a 1.2 metre high fence in accordance with Clause 8.2.2 of BS 5837 "Trees in Relation to Construction" at least one metre beyond the canopy of each tree including the copper beach tree located within the neighbouring garden of 2 Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh who’s roots and canopy are partially within the application site. Reason: The landscape features to be protected are important to the appearance and character of the site and the surrounding area and are required to successfully integrate the proposal with its surroundings. 10. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site, full details of any external lighting to be used within the site or along its access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include full details of the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. Reason: In order to avoid the potential of light pollution infringing on surrounding land uses/properties. 11. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; The first floor glazing to the North elevation (shower room window) and the first floor glazing to the West elevation (behind the proposed screening) of the proposed extension shall be of obscure glass and maintained in perpetuity in obscure glass to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent properties. 12. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site details of the replacement chimney pots to the existing building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposals do not adversely affect the architectural and historic character of the building. 13. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; Prior to work starting on site identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance, including noise/ vibration, dust, and any temporary lighting provided, which may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the demolition / construction process should be undertaken by the applicant. This should include consideration of intended hours of operation, movement of vehicles, use of plant and storage of equipment and materials on site. For all potential sources of nuisance the applicant will be required to provide a management plan with details of suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction does not cause loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 14. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1; In order to minimise, as far as necessary, the level of noise and/or vibration to which nearby existing residents will be exposed during the construction process the hours of operation of the site should be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. There should be no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. Page 42
Page 43
NOTE TO APPLICANT n/a Page 43
Page 44
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/00652/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT A. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The site is located within the Main Town Settlement Zone of Helensburgh as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP) wherein Policy LDP DM 1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of small scale development on appropriate sites. 1.2. NPF 4 Policy 1 requires that significant weight be given the global climate and nature crises when considering new development. Policy 2 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to impacts on climate change. NPF 4 Policy 5 aims to protect locally, regionally, national and internationally valued soils. 1.3. The development is located within an identified settlement with access to community facilities and public transport networks, consistent with the LDP Settlement Strategy, and as such complies with the Sustainability criteria established by Policy LDP STRAT 1, and is compatible with the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 1 in terms of addressing the Climate Crisis in principle. The site is located within an established residential area and will not impact upon soil that has material value. It is recommended that any planning permission will be subject to a model planning condition. 1.4. On the above basis, it is considered that there is a general presumption in favour of the principle of this proposed development in terms of its location, nature and scale when assessed against the policy provisions relating to the LDP Settlement Strategy and relevant NPF 4 Policy. B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1 4 West Lennox Drive, Helensburgh is located within the Helensburgh Hill House Conservation Area and is directly adjacent to a category B listed property. The existing property is a detached unlisted two storey traditional villa. Located on the opposite side of the street is A listed Brantwoode and adjacent to this is B listed Strathmoyne. Furthermore, located on the street behind the site is A listed Red Towers and adjacent to this is B listed Tordarroch. It is noted that historically the proposals site was subdivided and a modern dwelling was built within the rear garden grounds. The area surrounding the property is a well-established residential area consisting of several listed properties as noted above, set with large plots as well as some modern dwellings which have been built within the garden grounds of the original villas. 2.2 The existing plot measures approximately 2165sqm, the existing house including the single storey element has a footprint of approximately 216sqm, with the single storey element having a footprint of 55sqm. The existing garage has a footprint of approximately 30sqm and the timber sheds have a combined footprint of approximately 18sqm bringing the total built element on site to approximately 264sqm. The existing house is sited towards the rear of the plot with a large front garden. The site gently slopes downhill from North to South and is bounded by mature hedges to all boundaries. 2.3 The proposal seeks to remove the existing single storey element to the side / rear of the property and replace this with a new two storey extension. This proposed extension has a footprint of 90sqm whereas the original single storey element had a foot print of 55sqm. The proposal also sees to remove the existing garage to the side / rear of the property which has a footprint of 30sqm and replace this with a larger garage / gym which has a footprint of 70sqm. The proposal also seeks to introduce a covered external ‘link’ canopy to the rear between the garage / gym and the new extension, this has a footprint of 25sqm. The proposals also seek to remove the timber garden sheds. In summary the resultant total built element on the site would be approximately 346sqm in lieu of the 264sqm at present (an increase of 82sqm). This would represent less than 20% of the site being built up which is well under the 33% threshold Page 44
Page 45
considered to be overdevelopment. It is also noted that the footprint of the proposed first floor of the extension extends to approximately 50sqm. 2.4 NPF4 Policy 16 requires that development proposals will be supported where they ‘do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials’. 2.5 NPF4 Policy 14 requires that development proposals be designed to improve the quality of an area; and, offers support to development that achieve the six qualities of Health; Pleasant; Connected; Distinctive; Sustainable; and, Adaptable. Development that is poorly designed, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding areas or inconsistent with the aforementioned six qualities will not be supported. 2.6 NPF Policy 14 is closely aligned with the provisions of Policy LDP 9 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles which requires that new development be assessed against identified sustainability criteria and identified design. The Supplementary Guidance also establishes design criteria that seeks to protect the residential amenities and daylight enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 2.7 The design of the proposed extensions and garage are contemporary in design and are considered to be subservient to the donor house and do not dominate it, the clear delineation between the old and the new is welcomed as is in line with policy, the proposed materials are high quality and respect the character of the existing property and wider conservation area. 2.8 Having regard to the built development pattern and densities of the local area, it is noted that there is a range of scale and design of houses, and whilst the overall pattern of built development is very spacious, there is a range of site densities; and that the ratio of built development to open curtilage in the case of this proposal is similar to some other existing development. The scale of the proposed extensions being an increase of 82sqm to the overall built element on the site is comparatively small and it is considered that the siting, form, massing and material finishes will respect and enhance the existing character of built development and compliment the visual character of the area in accordance with the relevant provisions of NPF4; LDP 9 and SG on Sustainable Siting and Design Principles. 2.9 The proposed extension and garage will be screened from surrounding properties at ground floor level by existing natural boundary features and this screening, in conjunction with the relative orientation of windows and separation distances will mean that there will be no material loss of residential amenities to the occupiers of surrounding properties by reason of overlooking. In terms of the first floor element the window on the north elevation of the proposed extension is in excess of the minimum 18 metres guideline (SG – Sustainable) from windows on the front elevation of the property to the rear, it is also noted that the proposed window is to a non-habitable room and that furthermore, a condition has been recommended that this window be obscure glass and maintained in perpetuity in obscure glass to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent property. It is also noted that there was concern that the perforated steel cladding to the first floor of the West elevation of the proposed extension could impact on the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring property, it is noted that a safeguarding condition has been recommended that requires samples of this material be approved by the authority and that further a condition has been recommended that requires the glazing behind this screening be of obscure glass to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent property. Lastly, the proposed windows to the south elevation of the first floor extension and the proposed terrace at this location; these will be screened by the exiting large copper beach tree which is sited within the neighbouring garden (this tree subject to separate TPO consideration), furthermore, there is an existing level of overlook from the existing first floor windows in this location, therefore, the limited additional element of overlooking is considered to be within acceptable limits. On this basis, Officers area satisfied that the proposed development will not have a material impact upon the residential amenities of nearby properties in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 14 and Policy LDP 9/SG – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles. Page 45
Page 46
C. Natural Environment 3.1 NPF4 Policy 3 generally seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and to deliver positive benefits from development that strengthens nature networks. Policy 3(c) requires that proposals for local development will include appropriate biodiversity measures proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal. Policy 3(d) requires any potential adverse impacts on biodiversity/nature networks/natural environment to be minimised by planning and design. NPF 4 Policy 3 is generally aligned with LDP Policy, although NPF 4 Policy 3(c) goes beyond the LDP requirements in relation to current biodiversity interests of the site. 3.2 NPF 4 Policy 4 generally confirms that development that will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Outside of European, national and local designations, development is expected to meet the relevant statutory tests in terms of protected species legislation; and potential impacts must be fully considered prior to determination of planning applications. NPF 4 Policy 4 (insofar as it relates to the location, nature and scale of the current proposal) largely aligns with the provisions of LDP policy. 3.3 Policy LDP 3 (the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan – 2015) generally serves to support the protection, conservation and enhancement of the environment. SG LDP ENV 1 ensures that other legislation relating to biodiversity habitats are fully considered in relation to development proposals; and generally that development does not have an adverse impact on habitat or species, particularly in relation to habitat or species designated as being of European, national or local significance. 3.4 The site is not located within or in proximity to any nature conservation designation with the majority of the proposals being built on previously developed land where the existing garage and single storey element are to be removed. 3.5 It is advised that submission, assessment and approval of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping be required by planning condition which the council’s Local Biodiversity Officer will have opportunity to assess. It is further recommended that this condition requires that any hard landscaping proposed be of permeable materials as to not impact on the surface water drainage for the site. D. Built Environment 4.1 The site is located within the Helensburgh Hill House Conservation Area. 4.2 The existing property is not listed though it is a traditional detached villa. 4.3 The exiting property is sited directly adjacent to a category B listed property. Located on the opposite side of the street from the site to the South is A listed Brantwoode and adjacent to this is B listed Strathmoyne. Furthermore, located on the street behind the site to the North is A listed Red Towers and adjacent to this is B listed Tordarroch. For this reason Historic Environment Scotland have been consulted on the proposals due to the possible effects on setting of surrounding listed properties and they have noted; ‘The Hill House is several streets away, with no intervisibility with 4 West Lennox Drive, and is not likely to experience any impacts on its setting. As well as Red Towers, we have also considered potential impacts on nearby Category A-listed Brantwoode on Munro Drive West. We have considered how the surroundings of Red Towers and Brantwoode contribute to an understanding, appreciation, and experience of their cultural significance and do not think the proposed extensions at 4 West Lennox Drive would have a significant adverse impact on their settings.’ 4.4 NPF4 Policy 7 generally seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment, assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 7(a) requires that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places be accompanied by an assessment based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the asset and/or place. Development will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced; and where the existing Page 46
Page 47
natural and built features which contribute to the character of the conservation area (including boundary walls, trees and hedges) are retained. 4.5 The provisions of NPF 4 Policy 7 (as it applies to the current proposal) are LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 16(a) and SG LDP ENV 17, however NPF 4 Policy 7(a) imposes an additional requirement for a detailed assessment as summarised above which was requested by the councils design and conservation officer within their original consultation response. The applicants have taken this on board and have submitted a revised design and access statement as well as the submission of a visual impact assessment which is considered acceptable under the requirements of the above. 4.6 Officers are satisfied that the proposed development, by reason of siting, scale, form and design is of a sufficiently high standard and will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Hill House Conservation Area in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 7, Policy LDP 3, SG LDP 16(a), and relevant HES guidance on development impact on historic assets. F. Impact on Woodland 5.1 As the site is located within a conservation area any works to the existing trees within the site would require tree works consent. Within the site there are approximately 12 trees that bound the eastern boundary, a single large tree at the southern boundary and 3 trees along the western boundary, no works or removals have been proposed to any trees within the site. However given the close proximity of the extension to the boundary trees and neighbouring trees (including the copper beech at 2 Upper Colquhoun St) and the works to install new drains then the tree roots may be affected. 5.2 It is advised that during construction work on site, including the laying of services, that no excavation shall be undertaken below the canopy of any tree to be retained including the copper beach tree located within the neighbouring garden of 2 Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh who’s roots and canopy are partially within the application site by way of a planning condition. 5.3 Furthermore, it is also advised that all existing trees on site shall be protected at all times during the construction period by means of the erection of a 1.2 metre high fence in accordance with Clause 8.2.2 of BS 5837 "Trees in Relation to Construction" at least one metre beyond the canopy of each tree including the copper beach tree located within the neighbouring garden of 2 Upper Colquhoun Street, Helensburgh who’s roots and canopy are partially within the application site by way of a further planning condition. 5.4 It should be noted that the aforementioned copper beach tree which is sited within the neighbouring properties garden at; 2 Upper Colquhoun Street form part of a separate TPO application which the council is recommending as this particular tree is a key landscape feature which is to be protected and is important to the appearance and character of the surrounding conservation area. 5.5 On the above basis it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 6; Policy LDP 3; and SG LDP ENV 6. K. Infrastructure 6.1 The application forms state that the site is not within an area of known risk of flooding; and advises that the applicant does not think that the proposal will increase flood risk elsewhere. The application site, is not overlain by any recorded areas at risk to coastal, fluvial or surface water flooding with reference to the SEPA Flood Map. Page 47
Page 48
6.2 During the determination process the applicant has submitted plans to show a re-routed and repaired surface water drainage scheme for the site. It is noted that consent is not required for the repair of existing drainage but is required if there are proposed alterations to the existing drainage. As such the applicant has submitted drawing to show the surface water drainage alterations. I have been to site and viewed the issues with the current broken surface water drainage and I am content that the proposed alterations to reinstate and alter this are sufficient. As this is a proposed extension and not a new build there is no requirement for the applicants to install a new SUDS system. The submitted drawings show a new french drain running along the northern boundary of the rear site to pick up the broken field drains which where discharging water into the solum of the property and then route the new field drain to the front of the property to tie in with the existing drainage discharge. 6.3 Subject to the above, it is considered that the proposal makes adequate provision for services infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 22, SG LDP SERV 2 and LDP2 Policy 61. Page 48
Page 49
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2005 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No. XYZ123ABC Location Plan Relative to Planning Application:23/00652/PP O 1:1,250 0 10 205 Meters Application Site Page 49
Page 50
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 51
Ref: ABH1/2009 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PROCEDURE NOTE FOR USE AT HYBRID DISCRETIONARY HEARING HELD BY THE PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE 1. Hybrid meetings are those that will involve a physical location and facilitate attendees joining virtually if they wish. 2. The Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support will notify the applicant, all representees, supporters and objectors of the Council’s decision to hold a Hearing and to indicate the date on which the hearing will take place. The hearing will proceed on that day, unless the Council otherwise decides, whether or not some or all of the parties are represented or not. Statutory consultees (including Community Councils) will be invited to attend the meeting to provide an oral presentation on their written submissions to the Committee, if they so wish. Details on how interested parties can access the meeting will be referenced within the same notification. 3. On receipt of the notification the applicant, all representees, including supporters and objectors will be encouraged to appoint one or a small number of spokespersons to present their views to concentrate on the matters of main concern to them and to avoid repetition. Parties who wish to speak at the meeting shall notify Argyll and Bute Council no less than 2 working Days (excluding public holidays and weekends) prior to the start of the meeting. This is to facilitate remote access (see note 1) and the good conduct of the meeting. 4. The Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support will give a minimum of 7 days’ notice of the date and time for the proposed Hearing to all parties. 5. The hearing will proceed in the following order and as follows. 6. The Chair will introduce the Members of the Committee, confirm the parties present who have indicated their wish to speak and outline the procedure which will be followed. It is therefore imperative that those parties intending to speak join the meeting at its commencement. 7. The Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth’s representative will present their report and recommendations to the Committee. Page 51 Agenda Item 3c
Page 52
Ref: ABH1/2009 8. The applicant will be given an opportunity to present their case for approval of the proposal and may include in their submission any relevant points made by representees supporting the application or in relation to points contained in the written representations of objectors. 9. The consultees, supporters and objectors in that order (see note 1), will be given the opportunity to state their case to the Committee. 10. All parties to the proceedings will be given a period of time to state their case (see note 3). In exceptional circumstances and on good cause shown the Committee may extend the time for a presentation by any of the parties at their sole discretion. 11. Members of the Committee only will have the opportunity to put questions to the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth’s representative, the applicant, the consultees, the supporters and the objectors. 12. At the conclusion of the question session the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth’s representative, the applicant, any consultees present, the supporters and the objectors (in that order) will each be given an opportunity to comment on any particular information given by any other party after they had made their original submission and sum up their case. 13. If at any stage it appears to the Chair that any of the parties is speaking for an excessive length of time he/she will be entitled to invite them to conclude their presentation forthwith. (see note 3) 14. The Chair will ascertain from the parties present that they have had a reasonable opportunity to state their case. 15. The Committee will then debate the merits of the application and will reach a decision on it. No new information can be introduced after the Committee begins to debate. 16. The Chair or the Governance Officer on his/her behalf will announce the decision. 17. A summary of the proceedings will be recorded by the Committee Services Officer. NOTE (1) If you wish to speak at the hearing you will require to notify the Committee Services Officer no less than 2 working Days (excluding public holidays and weekends) prior to the start of the meeting. This is to facilitate remote access if required and the good conduct of the meeting. Page 52
Page 53
Ref: ABH1/2009 In the event that a party wishes to speak to a visual presentation, this requires to be sent to Committee Services no less than 2 working days (excluding public holidays and weekends) before the commencement of the Hearing; this will not be shared with other parties prior to the meeting but will ensure its availability for the commencement of the Hearing. The Committee Services Officer will control the slides under explicit instruction from the spokesperson(s), it would therefore be helpful if the slides were individually numbered. It would also be helpful if the file size of the presentations is kept to a minimum to mitigate against any potential IT issues – guidance can be provided if required. If it is your intention to join the hearing to observe the proceedings, please advise the Committee Services Officer no less than 2 working Days (excluding public holidays and weekends) prior to the start of the meeting to facilitate remote access if required. (2) Councillors (other than those on the Committee) who have made written representations and who wish to speak at the hearing will do so under note 1 above according to their representations but will be heard by the Committee individually. (3) Recognising the level of representation the following time periods have been allocated to the parties involved in the Hearing. For the avoidance of doubt the time allocated will be per party and will include for example all supporters/objectors in the half hour slot except where additional time is agreed by the Chair. The representative of the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth – not more than half an hour The Applicant - not more than half an hour. The Consultees - not more than half an hour. The Supporters - not more than half an hour. The Objectors - not more than half an hour. (4) The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that all relevant information is before the Committee and this is best achieved when people with similar views co-operate in making their submissions. (5) Everyone properly qualified as a representee recorded on the application report who wishes to be given an opportunity to speak will be given such opportunity subject to the requirements for notice herein. (6) Should, for any reason, Members of the Committee who are joining remotely lose connection or have any technical issues during the meeting, they will be asked to contact the Governance or Committee Support officer, if possible, by email or instant message. A short adjournment may be taken to try and resolve the connection. If the Members of the Committee are unable to re-join the meeting and a quorum still exists then the meeting will continue to proceed. If a Page 53
Page 54
Ref: ABH1/2009 quorum does not exist the meeting will require to be adjourned. For the avoidance of doubt Members of the Committee have to be present for the whole hearing in order to take part in the decision. (7) Should, for any reason, participants joining the hearing remotely lose connection or have any technical issues during the meeting, a short adjournment may be taken to try and resolve the connection. In the event the connection cannot be restored within a reasonable timeframe consideration will be given to the continuation of the meeting. (8) Members of the Committee joining remotely will use the hands up function to indicate to the Chair when they wish to speak to ask a question or make a comment. This function will be monitored by the Chair and by governance staff in attendance. (9) Where a Councillor who is a member of the PPSL has made or wishes to make a representation (on behalf of any party) during the meeting in relation to the application under consideration, they should make their position clear to the Chair and declare an interest. Having done so, they may, at the appropriate time, make the relevant representation and then must retire fully from the meeting room prior to deliberation of the matter commencing. A Councillor, not a member of the PPSL, may make a representation (on behalf of any party) during the meeting in relation to the application then must retire fully from the meeting room prior to deliberation of the matter commencing. (10) The Council has developed guidance for Councillors on the need to compose a competent motion if they consider that they do not support the recommendation from the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth which is attached hereto. I:data/typing/virtual planning hearings/procedure note Page 54
Page 55
Ref: ABH1/2009 COMPETENT MOTIONS • Why is there a need for a competent motion? o Need to avoid challenge by “third party” to local authority decision which may result in award of expenses and/or decision being overturned. o Challenges may arise from: judicial review, planning appeal, ombudsman (maladministration) referral. Expenses may be awarded against unsuccessful parties, or on the basis of one party acting in an unreasonable manner, in appeal/review proceedings. • Member/Officer protocol for agreeing competent motion: o The process that should be followed should Members be minded to go against an officer’s recommendation is set out below. • The key elements involved in formulating a competent motion: o It is preferable to have discussed the component parts of a competent motion with the relevant Member in advance of the Committee (role of professional officers). This does not mean that a Member has prejudged the matter but rather will reflect discussions on whether opinions contrary to that of professional officers have a sound basis as material planning considerations. o A motion should relate to material considerations only. o A motion must address the issue as to whether proposals are considered consistent with Adopted Policy of justified as a departure to the Development Plan. Departure must be determined as being major or minor. o If a motion for approval is on the basis of being consistent with policy reasoned justification for considering why it is consistent with policy contrary to the Head of Development and Economic Growth’s recommendation must be clearly stated and minuted. o If a motion for approval is on the basis of a departure from policy, reasoned justification for that departure must be clearly stated and minuted. Consideration should be given to holding a PAN 41 Hearing (determined by policy grounds for objection, how up to date development plan policies are, volume and strength of representation/contention) o A motion should also address planning conditions and the need for a Section 75 Agreement. o Advice from the Scottish Government as contained within Planning Circular 3/2013: Development management procedures on the definition of a material planning consideration is attached herewith However, interested parties should always seek their own advice on matters relating to legal or Page 55
Page 56
Ref: ABH1/2009 planning considerations as the Council cannot be held liable for any error or omission in the said guidance. Page 56
Page 57
Ref: ABH1/2009 DEFINING A MATERIAL CONSIDERATION 1. Legislation requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan (and, in the case of national developments, any statement in the National Planning Framework made under section 3A (5) of the 1997 Act) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The House of Lord’s judgement on City of Edinburgh Council v the Secretary of State for Scotland (1998) provided the following interpretation. If a proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations indicating that it should be refused, permission should be granted. If the proposal does not accord with the development plan, it should be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted. 2. The House of Lord’s judgement also set out the following approach to deciding an application: - Identify any provisions of the development plan which are relevant to the decision, - Interpret them carefully, looking at the aims and objectives of the plan as well as detailed wording of policies, - Consider whether or not the proposal accords with the development plan. - Identify and consider relevant material considerations for and against the proposal, and - Assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the development plan. 3. There are two main tests in deciding whether a consideration is material and relevant: - It should serve or be related to the purpose of planning. It should therefore relate to the development and use of land, and - It should fairly and reasonably relate to the particular application. 4. It is for the decision maker to decide if a consideration is material and to assess both the weight to be attached to each material consideration and whether individually or together they are sufficient to outweigh the development plan. Where development plan policies are not directly relevant to the development proposal, material considerations will be of particular importance. 5. The range of considerations which might be considered material in planning terms is very wide and can only be determined in the context of each case. Examples of possible material considerations include: - Scottish Government policy, and UK Government policy on reserved matters - The National Planning Framework - Scottish planning policy, advice and circulars - European policy - A proposed strategic development plan, a proposed local development plan, or proposed supplementary guidance Page 57
Page 58
Ref: ABH1/2009 - Guidance adopted by a Strategic Development Plan Authority or a planning authority that is not supplementary guidance adopted under section 22(1) of the 1997 Act - A National Park Plan - The National Waste Management Plan - Community plans - The Environmental impact of the proposal - The design of the proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings - Access, provision of infrastructure and planning history of the site - Views of statutory and other consultees - Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters 6. The planning system operates in the long term public interest. It does not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another. In distinguishing between public and private interest, the basic question is whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest, not whether owners or occupiers of neighbouring or other existing properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development. Page 58