Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 27 August 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 27 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 27 AUGUST 2024 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Attending: Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager (Adviser) Hazel MacInnes, Senior Committee Officer (Minutes) Fiona McPhee, Applicants Agent Laura McLaurin, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: 24/0004/LRB: PLOT 2, ACHNACAIRN, NORTH CONNEL (REF: 22/01950/PPP) The Chair, Councillor Gordon Blair, welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that no person present would be entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body and Mr Jackson, who would provide procedural advice if required. He advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the Local Review Body felt that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review. Councillors Brown and Hardie confirmed that following the site visit they had enough information before them to come to a decision on the review. Councillor Blair agreed advising that he too felt he had enough information before him to come to a decision. Councillor Brown moved the following Motion, which was seconded by Councillor Hardie – There is a general presumption in favour of development within this area of North Connel, established by current policy but this is qualified by the requirement to ensure that developments accord with the existing and established pattern of development and do not result in an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact, with an overwhelming emphasis on respecting the character and setting of the area into which the individual development proposal is to be located, taking account of local spacing, layout, densities, privacy and amenity standards. The site the subject of this application is situated to the rear of a row of established residential properties which front the public road and in the view of planning, the development of the site with a dwellinghouse would represent an inappropriate form of backland development which would be contrary to the established settlement pattern within the surrounding area which is generally characterised by dwellinghouse presenting to the public road and therefore it is considered that the proposed development is contrary
Page 2
to NPF4 Policy 9 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1 and Policy 01 of pLDP2. It is also considered contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 due to it being backland development contrary to the existing settlement pattern which fails to pay regard to the wider surroundings of the site in terms of existing character, scale and density and NFP4 Policy 15 due to it failing to respect the existing established pattern resulting in an adverse environmental impact. In all other aspects the development either complies with the policies in LDP2 and NFP4 or any concerns can be mitigated through conditions. The determining issue in relation to the case is as follows: Whether the proposed site represents an appropriate opportunity for development with a single dwellinghouse having sufficient regard to the established settlement pattern of the surrounding area. I’ve considered the aspects that in terms of the general presumption favour development in the North Connel area and the other matters that must be taken into account, local spacing, layout, densities, privacy and amenity standards. Environmental – the development is considered appropriate in terms of its type, location and scale such that it will have no unacceptable impact on the natural environment – page 42 of the pack for the meeting on 27 May where there is a comment in regard to NPF4 Policy 4. Servicing/Access - the site visit showed that access to the site is by an already established track with a new spur into the site with water supply via connection to the public water main and drainage via the installation of a septic tank and soakaway due to the lack of public drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site and as such there are no servicing or access issues that impact to a degree that mean this application should be refused. Spacing – the location of the site is adjacent to the property Lasghair but there is sufficient open space at this location for there to be no issues with this development going ahead. Layout/design – is covered by condition 4. Densities – no issues due to the open space between the access track from the C25 and the development. Privacy – there have been no objections to the proposed development by the owners of any of the neighbouring properties including Lasgair and Greenloaning. Amenity standards – I do not consider that the development would result in any detriment to the wider landscape. Having considered the information in the agenda packs, visiting the site and having looked at other locations on the same road to my mind there is a lot of similarity between developments in those locations and what is being proposed here.
Page 3
On the basis of my comments above, I am of the view that albeit technically this proposal could be considered as backland development, it accords with the existing and established pattern of development in the North Connel area and does not result in an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact that would mean the proposal should be refused. I therefore move that this application for planning permission in principle can be approved as a minor departure from LDP2, NPF4 Policy 9 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1 and Policy 01 of pLDP2 subject to the conditions and reasons contained on pages 4 to 8 of the agenda pack for today’s meeting. Mr Jackson confirmed that the Motion before them was competent. Decision The Argyll and Bute Local Review Body, having considered the merits of the case de novo, unanimously agreed to uphold the request for review and to grant planning permission in principle as per the above Motion. (Motion by Councillor Jan Brown, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie, tabled)