Consider Notice of Review Request: Glenaros Annexe, Drummore Road, Oban, Pa34 4Jl (Ref:25/0002/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 11 March 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 11 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
1 fair planning & design chartered planning and architectural services Response to representations submitted relative to Notice of Review 25/0002/LRB Argyll and Bute Council – Local Review Body Appellant: Ross Maitland Project Ref: 2024027 Development: Refusal of planning permission 24/01282/PP: Change of use of residential annexe to form short term holiday letting accommodation Site: Glenaros, Drummore Road, Oban, PA34 4JL Scale: Local development
Page 2
2 Response Thank you for the opportunity to respond to representations submitted relative to Notice of Review 25/0002/LRB. We note the Planning Service response to the Notice of Review. Our comments are listed below for brevity. Please read this document in conjunction with our original statement of case for completeness. By way of clarification of the background in this case, we acknowledge that the appellant’s former understanding that the approved residential annexe could be used as a STHL unit without needing planning permission was erroneous. His belief had been founded on the knowledge that the Planning Authority had granted both use types within single planning permissions nearby and contemporaneously with his proposal at Glenaros (the same architects having been involved in positive applications to the Planning Authority around the same time). The appellant only became aware of the implication of planning condition 2 of 22/01765/PP when seeking a Short Term Letting Licence for the property. As soon as the matter was fully understood, he took steps to correct matters. Planning application 24/01282/PP sought to regularise the situation. Returning to the matter at hand: • We welcome the Planning Authority’s further confirmation that “…the annexe building does not raise any adverse privacy, amenity or visual impact issues, or result in the loss of useable residential accommodation…”, and that they consider it acceptable in all respects other than access. • We note that no specific response or comments have been provided to the question of baseline traffic levels, or the comparative decisions identified within our comprehensive appeal statement. • The Planning Service response appears to focus on discrediting the appellant’s motives leading up to this point, rather than debating the merits of the case. Irrespective of the background, or any potential motives at any stage hitherto, the application requires a fair and objective assessment, having regard to current planning policy and material considerations. Material considerations in this case include precedent decisions. • Just because a Roads Officer previously indicated at a pre-application stage that they would not support a holiday unit at the site, does not discount the fact that neither they, nor the Planning Authority, had any objections to a subsequent application for a residential annexe at the site (22/01765/PP), nor that the approved residential annexe forms a baseline level of traffic against which the current application (24/01282/PP) must be compared. • Nowhere in planning permission 22/01765/PP is the use of the residential annexe limited to occasional use only. It is mistaken speculation on the part of planning officers if they assert that only occasional usage may occur. The only limitation on occupation of the annexe to Glenaros is that it: “shall not be occupied independently thereof as a separate dwelling unit” (planning condition 2).
Page 3
3 • It is not necessary for an appellant to provide evidence that vehicular usage levels will be unchanged for a small-scale development. Planning and Roads Officers should be readily able to evaluate such matters within their normal assessment process. However, in order to illustrate baseline traffic levels for comparison with proposed traffic levels, we have provided the following summary: Glenaros is a five-bedroom house plus a one-bedroom residential annexe. It can lawfully be occupied by any family of unrestricted numbers; or by up to 5 unrelated people; or as a family home with B&B activity in a maximum of two out of the five bedrooms in the main house. These three potential occupation types can all occur under Use Class 9 without the need for any further planning permission. For example, the house and annexe could accommodate a set of parents in their early 50’s, plus three kids around ages 23, 17, and 12, plus one grandparent in their early 70’s. Such a family group can permanently occupy the property and could conceivably include multiple drivers. A spare bedroom can be used as a study or for B&B or for hobbies as the owners may wish. The approved residential annexe can already lawfully provide a ‘granny annexe’ function, or more commonly nowadays, a degree of independent living for grown children who might be struggling to find suitable or affordable housing of their own. In either case, the occupant of the annexe will be capable of owning a vehicle and utilising the parking space directly in front of the annexe. The existing parking and turning arrangements were confirmed by the Planning Authority as sufficient to serve the house and residential annexe under planning permission 22/01765/PP. The existing one-bedroom residential annexe can attract a single vehicle. A proposed one-bedroom STHL unit would also attract a single vehicle. Therefore, no increase in traffic is generated when changing from the approved residential annexe to a proposed STHL unit. That the levels of traffic generated by residential annexes is so similar to that which is generated by STHL units of the same size, is part of the reason why the Planning Authority has been able to allow both uses interchangeably within single planning permissions in a number of previous cases, as evidenced within our original appeal statement.
Page 4
No embedded text on this page.