Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 10 October 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 10 October 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 2 October 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2024 at 4:00 PM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE STREET, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD (REF: 24/0012/LRB) (a) Further Information from Applicant (Pages 3 - 6) (b) Further Information from Design and Conservation Officer (Pages 7 - 10) (c) Further Information from Planning (Pages 11 - 14) (d) New Information (agreed at LRB on 3 September 2024 to be included in process) (Pages 15 - 16) (e) Comment on New Information (Pages 17 - 20) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Fiona Howard Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Dear Sirs, On behalf of the appellant, please see attached additional submission and productions nine and ten, lodged on behalf of the appellant relative to the former cottage, now demolished. The appellant possesses limited information beyond some family anecdotes, but the historic town plan is helpful, though it is small scale. Our attempts to source an historic photograph of Breadalbane Street were unsuccessful. Sincerely, Martin Hannah MRTPI Director Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Gháidheal agus Bhóid Development And Economic Growth Executive Director: Kirsty Flanagan 1A Manse Brae, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RD Officer e-mail address: kim.debuiteleir@argyll-bute.gov.uk Ref: 24/0012/LRB 17 September 2024 By email only to: localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk Dear Sir/ Madam PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) PROPOSAL: 23/02358/PP – Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio SITE ADDRESS: Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, Argyll and Bute, PA75 6PD Statement on the characteristics and special qualities of Tobermory Conservation Area (and the potential impact of the proposal on these). There is no current Conservation Area Appraisal however a Conservation Area Character Appraisal / Key Environmental Features Survey was carried out for an old Local Plan. This states that the “planned grid-iron layout of the town is a key feature and that the conservation area has limited capacity to accommodate new development which adversely affects the town’s continuity and cohesiveness. New development proposals within the conservation area should aim to maintain where possible the classic grid-iron pattern, particularly within the upper part of town”. A more detailed assessment of the pattern shows the proposed development site sits on the edge of a group of 6 blocks where terraces of (predominantly) 2 storey houses face Breadalbane Street and Argyll Terrace to the east and west. This street pattern is highlighted on copies of the historic map below and GIS map overleaf. The scale and footprint of the proposed extension have the potential to alter the perceived main frontage of Rosebank to West Street, instead of Breadalbane Street, breaking up this strong pattern. Page 7 Agenda Item 3b
Page 8
The streets running east to west (Victoria Street, West Street and Albert Street) are quite open in nature, with views not only down towards the bay, but also across the large back gardens. The back gardens are peppered with existing ancillary buildings and extensions, however these project roughly as far out as the easternmost side of the existing garage at Rosebank (see GIS map below and comparison of garage and extension on proposed elevation overleaf). Due to the topography of the road, the underbuilding required would result in a 2 storey extension of this scale appearing more like three storeys, and potentially dominating and detracting from the main terraces running north to south. Therefore a reduction in the eastern projection of the extension would not only avoid this becoming the perceived main elevation as referred to in the 2nd paragraph, but result in less underbuilding and so have less impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore, the majority of these buildings (ancillary buildings and extensions) are single storey (see Google Streetview photo below), which could comfortably be accommodated here as an alternative. Both these options (single storey or reduction in projection) should still allow a 3 bedroom house (albeit with more modestly scaled rooms) on the site. Page 8
Page 9
Yours faithfully Kim de Buiteléir MRTPI Acting Senior Planning and Strategies Officer Development Policy Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 2 storey main frontage on Breadalbane Street Perceived height at rear due to steep topography Extent of projection further than red line on map on previous page Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 24/0012/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF PATIO – PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 23/02358/PP ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE STREET, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD Page 11 Agenda Item 3c
Page 12
INFORMATION REQUIRED Appropriate conditions and reasons to attach to any consent in the event that Members of the LRB were minded to approve the application. CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/02358/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 08.12.2023, 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 Plans as Existing KMcQ/01 11.12.2023 Block Plan 22.12.2023 Innervision Screens General Arrangement IVC 07/22 22.12.2023 Elevations as Existing KMcQ/02A 22.12.2023 Plans as Proposed KMcQ/03A 22.12.2023 Elevations and Sections as Proposed KMcQ/04B 22.12.2023 Technical Drawing 22.12.2023 Location Plan 12.01.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Submission of Details of Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until written details of the type and colour of materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roof coverings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings. Page 12
Page 13
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent water passing onto the public road. • A bin storage area shall be located next to the public road. Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
Notice of Review reference: 24/0012/LRB Planning Reference: 23/02358/PP Rosebank Breadalbane Street Tobermory Isle of Mull PA75 6PD 20/08/2024 I write in support of Kenneth Macquarie under this application / review to extend Rosebank. It seems to me there exists some confusion or contradiction between stated Council and Scottish Government policies, on the application of said policies. A key policy as stated by UK government in 1973 has been (and remains) to reverse depopulation. The 1973 document specifically refers to the situation on Mull. As I'm sure Mr Macquarie has already informed his family are from Mull and he represents long tradition where Islanders leave for employment while remaining rooted in the island and it's life. While the Planning department cannot, on its own, reverse depopulation it can assist while contributing to economic activity. However, the apparent planning department approach seems not to be aligned with a policy to improve economic growth. Indeed the application of policy seems biased against local progress while supporting negative views on Council intention. There needs to be found a better approach; a mechanisms that will enable officers to contribute in a positive way to enabling government policy under existing strategic objectives. In relation to this this specific planning application I would like to make the following points: 1. Policy: While it is absolutely crucial that there is clear policy enabling and controlling the construction of properties it must be balanced with the needs and in line with other policy objectives while having regard to local circumstances. The attempt to universally apply a policy across the diversity that is Argyll and Bute is clearly failing. Perhaps policy should be applied according to local circumstances. A pragmatic approach to avoid rigidity in policy would be to view policy as a ‘Wise man's guide’ adapted to situation and circumstance. 2. Conservation: While it is also essential to retain the character of a location this must be achieved as objectively as possible. A key in defining the character of any location, will be time-period as a reference. Local input is absolutely essential! 3. Consistency: It is difficult at times, when reflecting on Mull, to determine any consistency in planning! I would respectfully submit that this application be allowed as, in and of itself, it represents much that should be allowed to retain aspects of the character of the Island. Andrew Kain Page 15 Agenda Item 3d
Page 16
Fairways Lodge, Tobermory, PA75 6PS Page 16
Page 17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON NEW EVIDENCE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 24/0012/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF PATIO – PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 23/02358/PP ROSEBANK, BREADALBANE STREET, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL, PA75 6PD Page 17 Agenda Item 3e
Page 18
COMMENT ON NEW EVIDENCE The new evidence submitted refers to reversing depopulation. This application relates to the proposed extension to the existing property of ‘Rosebank’. The property as existing features three bedrooms and the property as proposed would feature three bedrooms. Whilst the proposal would modernise the internal layout, given that the proposed development would not increase the available occupancy level of the dwelling, it is not considered that depopulation is a relevant consideration in this instance. The proposal relates to an existing three bedroom dwelling and does not relate to the provision of a new dwelling, nor does it propose to increase the number of bedrooms. The new evidence submitted refers to the “construction of properties” and states that it is “crucial that there is clear policy enabling and controlling the construction of properties”. The aforementioned point is reiterated in that this application relates to the proposed extension of an existing dwellinghouse where, whilst modernising the internal layout, the proposed development would not increase the available occupancy level of the dwelling. The proposal does not relate to the construction of a new dwelling as is suggested within the new evidence. The new evidence submitted suggests that regard must be had to local circumstances. In the assessment of this application, the Planning Authority has had due regard to the local distinctiveness of the area; Conservation Areas are an irreplaceable cultural and economic resource that contribute to the distinctive character and unique quality of Argyll and Bute and therefore must be protected. Contrary to the views stated within the submitted new evidence, the proposed development would not pay due regard to the context of the application site and instead, by virtue of its unsympathetically suburban design, would contribute to the erosion of the special qualities of the Tobermory Conservation Area. The new evidence submitted suggests that the application of policy across the diversity of the Argyll and Bute region is unsuccessful. The assessment and determination of planning applications is made in accordance with the Development Plan, which comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Local Development Plan 2. The relevant policies of the Development Plan seek to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development and to protect and enhance historic environment places, in this instance the Tobermory Conservation Area. The relevant policies stipulate that householder development proposals will only be supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials. The relevant policies further require development proposals to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. It is reiterated that, given the size of the plot, it is considered that there is opportunity for the dwellinghouse to be extended, however any such extensions must be of an acceptable design in relation to the host dwelling and its setting within the Tobermory Conservation Area. Despite seeking pre-application advice, neither the applicant nor the agent sought to address the comments of the Planning Authority prior to the submission of a formal planning application in terms of amendments to the proposed development to secure an acceptable design solution with regard to the relevant policy. The new evidence submitted suggests that the relevant policy is being applied with a blanket approach without regard to the context of the application site. This is contested and it is instead considered that the design solution for the proposed extension, which includes numerous features that would appear as incongruous to the Tobermory Conservation Area, is in itself lacking regard to local character. Household development, as proposed within this application, can result in creeping suburbanisation which slowly erodes the distinctive character of an area Page 18
Page 19
such that over time, built development can individually and cumulatively erode local character and result in a gradual suburbanising effect. Permitting development of this nature would compromise and undermine the purpose of the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan, which collectively seek to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development and to protect and enhance historic environment places, and to protect against inappropriately designed and scaled development such as that proposed within this application. Page 19
Page 20
This page is intentionally left blank