CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead (Ref: 24/0008/LRB)
Argyll and Bute Council · 23 August 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 23 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street, Helensburgh, G84 8BN Tel: 01436 674777 Mob: 07816 907203 Web: www.mhplanning.co.uk Email: info@mhplanning.co.uk 16 May 2024 Lynsey Innis Senior Committee Assistant Legal and Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Ref MHP: 2019_0057 Dear Lynsey REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE, LAND WEST OF MCAULAY BURN, GARELOCHHEAD (LPA REFERENCE 20/01822/PPP) I refer to your e-mail dated 8 May 2024 inviting comments regarding the representations received in connection with the above application for review. My response is as follows. Is the application proposal harmful to the open space? As noted in the appellant’s Grounds for Review the application now under consideration by the Local Review Body was submitted in October 2020. The application should therefore have been determined in February 2021 (2 months from the date of the submission). At the date of the submission of the application the site was not within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). It was however in an Area for Action (AFA), and the focus of the AFA designation was to consider options to effectively manage and visually enhance this important recreation and open space area within the village. It is for this reason that the applicant proposes, as an integral part of his application proposals the landscaping and ongoing management the remainder of his land, for the long term benefit of the local community. Officer say that the application proposal would result in the loss of a “significant part of the OSPA”. As noted in the Grounds for Review the proposed house plot equates to just 5.5% of the total area of OSPA. It is difficult to therefore understand how the loss of this could be “significant” when 94.5% of the OSPA would remain open and accessible to members of the public. Over and above the proposed house plot the applicant owns a further 21% of the
Page 2
Page 2 of 3 OSPA. This area of land will be significantly enhanced, by the applicant, for the benefit of everyone who uses it. The enhancements proposed include improvements to the network of informal footpaths through the site, the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management, the formation of wild flower meadows and the facilitation of a site the erection of a memorial to those lives lost when HMS K13 sank in Gare Loch in 1917. The proposed public realm enhancements, which would be funded entirely by the applicant, can be secured through the imposition of a planning condition or by entering into a Section 75 Planning Obligation. On this key issue the members of the Local Review Body are entitled to conclude that on balance the benefits of the public realm enhancements that are being proposed outweigh the loss of what is in reality a very small part of the overall OSPA. This was clearly the opinion of the Planning Officer who provided the initial pre- application advice. He said in 2019 that “it is my view that there is significant community benefit by way of upgrading of footpaths, new public realm areas and the new memorial. I place significant weight on these considerations and consider the proposal subject to a full planning assessment, acceptable”. Is the application proposal harmful to biodiversity? The application site is not specifically designated for its biodiversity value. Notwithstanding this, whist the review application was under consideration by Officer’s, the applicant was asked to survey the site for any signs of otters, bats, birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians and fish! As the applicant had been advised by the Planning Officer that the application was going to be recommended for refusal in principle he did not, for very understandable reasons, want to commit to the not insignificant costs associated with the survey of the site for such a long list of species. The applicant has no objections to undertaking the requested wildlife surveys but would only feel comfortable in committing to doing so if the Local Review Body were able to confirm that the application would be able to be approved in principle. In this context, the applicant is pleased to note that the Planning Officer has now stated that a planning condition could be used in order to secure both additional planting and ecological surveys. Under this heading Officers have referred specifically to Policy 3 of the National Planning Framework (NPF). This states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. The applicant is proposing a significant programme of tree and shrub planting, and the formation of wildflower meadows, on his land. All of these
Page 3
Page 3 of 3 measures will significantly increase the overall biodiversity value of the application site, in accordance with the requirements of the NPF. As was noted in the Grounds for Review, the applicant is already committed to an ongoing programme of works to eradicate Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica syn. Fallopia japonica) from his land. To date approximately an acre or previously inaccessible land has been cleared this very invasive species, which was in the region of 10 feet high and spreading. The Council’s own Biodiversity Action Plan recognises the danger to the natural environment, should Japanese knotweed be allowed to spread. Conclusion In conclusion it is considered that the review application can be approved as a ‘minor departure’ from the provisions of Policy 81 of the recently adopted Local Development Plan 2 on the basis of the significant community benefit that would accrue by way of the proposed improvements to the network of informal footpaths through the site, the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management, the formation of wild flower meadows and the facilitation of a site for the erection of the K13 memorial, all of which would be funded by the applicant. I trust that this is sufficient for your needs however please do not hesitate to let me know if you wish me to provide more information on any point. Yours sincerely Michael Hyde MRTPI MH Planning Associates