Consider Notice of Review Request: Rosebank, Breadalbane Street, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, Pa75 6Pd (Ref: 24/0012/Lrb)
Argyll and Bute Council · 3 September 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 3 September 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
1 HLM SCOTLAND LTD | CHARTERED TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANT KILNVIEW | DRAFFEN MOUNT | STEWARTON | EAST AYRSHIRE | KA3 5LG T. M. Email | _________________________________________________________________________________ Committee Services Officer Legal and Regulatory Support Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8RT Your Reference: 24/0012/LRB 19 August 2024 Dear Sirs, 23/02358/PP | Rosebank Breadalbane Street Tobermory, Isle of Mull PA75 6PD | Application for planning permission for alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of patio. We are in receipt of the Council’s Statement of Case and instructed to submit a further response to matters raised. This addendum to the appellant’s statement of case is listed as production five. Also attached is correspondence and photographs from the appellant (production six and six(a)) that we request be accepted as an addendum to our production list, as he responds directly to matters raised in the Council’s submissions. Our client Mr McQuarrie was present at preapplication and post submission interactions with Council Officers and as a local man he is better placed to comment and respond to specific points raised, whereas HLM was engaged latterly, to assist with preparation of the appeal. We shall continue to respond on the planning policy aspects material to handling. Description of site We dispute the characterisation of the description of the application site as prominent. The proposed extension aspects towards West Street and is set well back from this street. West Street is not a principal street, and the proposed development is not prominent. Statutory Basis The presumption that planning applications should be determined with regard the Development Plan and other material considerations is not disputed. The relationship between the adopted Local Development Plan and the National Planning Framework is explained in our statement of case. The substance of this appeal tuns on the interpretation and application of the relevant policies.
Page 2
2 However, we do not agree with the Council’s outright dismissal of the design guidance. Prior to accepting this engagement, preparing, and submitting this appeal, we consulted with the Duty Planner and Development Planning Team at Argyll and Bute Council to query and confirm the status of the guidance as it is dated. Officers advised that it was non statutory, but in the absence of replacement and updated guidance, it represented the Council’s most up to date committee approved design advice available to applicants and could still be considered material. It remains on the Council’s website. If the Guidance were obsolete, it would not still be available to view. There was no reference to the guidance in the Officer’s report on handling because it was overlooked. The appointed officer seeks to disregard its materiality because it is not helpful to the Council’s reasoning and the defence of this appeal. Statement of Case We have set out carefully and fully in our statement of case reasoning to explain that the proposed development accords with the Policies set out in the Development Plan. There is no material conflict with these policies. Requirement for Additional Information and a Hearing The applicant restates his request for a site inspection as this will provide opportunity to rebut assertions that the application site is prominent, that the proposed development will feature negatively and to address assertions that the West Street contributes significantly to the qualities of the Conservation Area. Our client who knows Tobermory and the Island of Mull intimately, has addressed this more fully in his correspondence attached. The application was dealt with under delegated procedures and refused notwithstanding expressions of public support from two parties. There were no objections recorded, and since the submission of this appeal, two local Councillors have now expressed their surprise about the refusal decision and offered support for the proposed development. The email received from Councillor Hume is listed as production eight. Under the circumstances, a site inspection and familiarisation with the site and wider setting appears justified. Appellant’s Submission It is not disputed that the house extension is large in relation to the original built footprint which was compact. The original footprint has been expanded with the addition of single storey outbuildings that will be cleared to accommodate the proposed development. The appointed Officer is concerned about the ambition of the house extension, its scale, height, and mass relative to the donor property, but it is our submission that there is capacity to accept this development without harm to the original dwelling or its wider setting. The appointed officer does not acknowledge that an adjacent cottage was demolished previously, and this land now extends the curtilage of the appeal property. In no sense can the development proposed be described as an over development of land. The curtilage remains generous and exceeds usual space standards. The proposed development accords with the published design guidance that the Council wishes selectively to disregard. The appointed Officer attached considerable weight to the consultation response of the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer. This Officer is not a Chartered Architect and did not reference the Council’s Design Guidance nor offer formal assessment against this guidance. We have conducted such an assessment and submit that the proposed development accords with the Council’s published standards. The applicant employed the services of an experienced Chartered Architect and invested faith in the professional expertise and experience of this consultant. Discussion and debate around the design merits of proposed development is subjective without a meaningful point of reference. National Planning Policy 4 does not offer fine grained, detailed design advice and is not helpful to judge the design merits of the proposal. Neither is the adopted Local Development Plan, but where there is design criteria listed, the statement of case sets out carefully how the proposed development complies.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.