Planning - Statement of Case
Argyll and Bute Council · 12 November 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 12 November 2024 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
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK TREATMENT SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED OUTFALL AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AT; LAND NORTH OF ROCKMOUNT, PORTINCAPLE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 21/01589/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0016/LRB 17th OCTOBER 2024
Page 2
The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Iain Hall (“the appellant”). The agent is Mr Alastair Cassell / Dualchas Architects (“the agent”). Planning permission 21/01589/PP for the erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage, installation of septic tank treatment system and associated outfall and formation of vehicular access at; land north of rockmount, portincaple (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 19th Jul 2024. This decision is the subject of referral to the Local Review Body DESCRIPTION OF SITE The appeal site is located within the settlement area of Portincaple as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2). The site also lies within a designated local landscape area. The site measures approximately 5,400 square metres and is bounded to the West by the shores of Loch Long, to the South by the boundary of neighbouring property Rockmount which is delineated by a timber fence and a steep rocky escarpment / vegetation, to the East by existing vegetation, and to the North by existing vegetation including trees and sections of post and wire fencing. The site has historically been cleared of the majority of trees and vegetation which would not have required consent. The site slopes steeply from the East down to the shore of Loch Long to the West. The proposed house is to be sited to the West of the site towards the shoreline on a flatter section of ground, the footprint of the proposed house is approximately 155sqm. A double detached garage is proposed to the East of the site adjacent to the proposed access which is to be located at the South / East corner, the footprint of the proposed garage is approximately 50sqm. A parking and turning area is proposed directly in front of the garage, the proposed driveway will transverse through the site terminating at another parking and turning area to the rear of the proposed house. Access is to the proposed development is to be via an existing private road which serves a large number of private properties. This private road is a ‘dead end’ road which commences at the nearest adopted road ‘Feuins Road’. This proposal seeks to utilise this private road and from another access onto it for the formation of the proposed dwellinghouse access and driveway. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and all other material planning considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application.
Page 3
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix A. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above it is not considered that a Hearing is required. STATEMENT OF CASE This Review rests on the issue of whether or not the planning authority were correct to refuse planning permission. The Report of Handling (ROH) is attached as Appendix A to this Statement as background information. The planning officer submits that, in her opinion, the ROH accurately summarises the material planning issues raised by the development proposed, this being informed by the application as submitted, by the additional supporting documents received from the appellant’s agent, the third party representations received and the consultation responses. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The appellant wishes to appeal the decision to refuse application on the grounds that the reason given for refusal is based on unjustifiably onerous conditions put forward by the Traffic & Development Officer which are neither commensurate nor appropriate to the scale of the proposed development. In response to this the council’s local roads area manager was initially consulted on the proposals and requested demonstration that certain commensurate improvement works to the existing access could be achieved. These improvement works included demonstration of the required; gradients along the access not exceeding 12.5% (1 in 8), details of how existing driveway access align with the required gradients, widths of the access, widths and lengths of the passing places, intervisibility of the passing places, details of the required surface water drainage along the access and details of the required turning point to accommodate service / emergency vehicles. The commensurate improvement works are considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed new development. The appellant latterly provided a detailed road survey report and study on how the existing road could be upgraded to meet these requirements in so far as reasonably practicable given the topographic constraints of the road and the surrounding site. This additional supporting information was considered by the roads officer and they provided an updated consultation response recommending refusal.
Page 4
The ROH addresses the additional information as submitted by the appellant and notes; ‘the additional information fails to show the required inter-visible passing places along the access road and that 3 of the indicated passing places are not within the applicant’s ownership and are in fact existing access to other dwellinghouses. It is also noted that the additional information fails to demonstrate that the maximum gradient of 12.5% can be achieved along the length of the access with the proposals showing sections of 15.11% and 16.97%. While it is noted that the applicants have shown 2 proposed inter-visible passing places on land within their ownership, a proposed turning head and that sections of the road fall below the maximum permitted gradient of 12.5%, they have not shown that all commensurate improvements can be achieved.’ The ROH then goes onto to note; ‘the area roads manager is recommended refusal of the application as the required commensurate improvements cannot be achieved due to; the existing topography of the access road / site and the ability to deliver the required passing places and widths within land in the applicant’s control. Roads have further noted that while the applicants have submitted information to demonstrate what could be achievable within land in their ownership it is not considered that this is sufficient to justify further intensification of an already unsuitable access road. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not comply with LDP2 policy 37 and also LDP2 polices 01 & 66 as adequate access cannot be provided.’ The appellant also notes within their submission; ‘The refusal also states, without any further explanation, that the application is contrary to LDP2 policy 66 and LDP2 policy 01.’ LDP2 policy 01 states; 'Within the Settlement Areas as defined on the proposals maps development will normally be acceptable where: It is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development’. For clarity the proposals would not comply with LDP2 policy 01 as an appropriate access cannot be provided. LDP2 policy 66 states; 'New buildings will only be permitted where: e) an appropriate standard of access to and parking for vehicles associated with the development is provided, it does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces, and that traffic generated as a result of the development is capable of being accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network surrounding the development;' For clarity the proposals would not comply with LDP2 policy 66 as an appropriate standard of access cannot be provided. Lastly the appellant notes their aggrievement with the time taken to determine the application. This is noted by officers, however, this is not a material planning consideration, and does not outweigh the road safety concerns.
Page 5
CONCLUSION Members are respectfully urged to dismiss this Notice of Review for the reasons stated above.
Page 6
APPENDIX A Report of Handling Relative to 21/01589/PP
Page 7
No embedded text on this page.
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
No embedded text on this page.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
No embedded text on this page.
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
No embedded text on this page.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
No embedded text on this page.
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.