Response from George and Morven Gage
Argyll and Bute Council · 29 February 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 29 February 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Mr and Mrs Gage Islay House, Glencruitten Oban PA34 4QB 21st January 2024 Planning reference number - 23/00848/PPP Local review reference - 24/0001/LRB Land SE of Islay House, Glencruitten, Oban, Argyll Dear Sir/Madam, Please find below our responses Best regards George and Morven Gage ………………………………………………………….. Response to the notice of review Section 7 1) This land is not a building site suitable for development into a dwelling house. The costs incurred are solely from seeking to develop the land and not from maintenance since 2007. 2) The land had become overgrown and was causing some problems with overhead lines. The leylandi hedge in particular has been left uncut since 2007. The land had been left overgrown until recently when the applicant wished to develop it. 3) Any fly-tipping that has taken place is minimal.. This area is used for refuse collection and the access allows for the refuse collectors to pull in safely. This
Page 2
area is also used for School children to wait and board the school bus safely. What justifies or warrants unauthrorised parking? Perhaps the applicant means the School bus, refuse lorry, SSE, Network rail, BT etc 4) The size of the land is not comparable to existing properties. The land has a large sloping area which used to form the garden at Islay House. The sloping land is supporting or retaining the garden above at Islay House. This cannot be included in the development area as removal of this would have a detrimental affect and poses a risk of subsidence to Islay House. The neighboring plots cannot be compared as they were developed approximately 40 years ago when there were very different building requirements. 5) There would be an impact to light and privacy to all surrounding properties. The leylandi hedge which is now extremely overgrown has been kept in place so that the proposed development minimises its impact towards ‘Burnside’ , however this hedge cannot be sustained. Response to Appeal Letter History - The applicant states that a family emergency forced them to move away, did this emergency give them enough time to split the garden, adjust the deeds, move the gas tank, services, build a retaining wall with substantial infill and then create a new connection to Islay Houses existing septic tank to serve a new property in the future. I have made several attempts to purchase the land with the intention of re-instating Islay Houses garden and to build a small workshop for my Joinery business. The applicant retained the land in 2007 with a view of developing it in the future to add to an already large property portfolio. All 3 houses - Islay House, Burnside and Oakholm overlook the land. Appeal Points The proposal does conflict with NPF4 as it is a greenfield area and should be kept as such. Suitable uses for the land could be - common area, local group use or to reinstate the garden of Islay House.
Page 3
The existing concrete hardstanding area on the land has no historic value and has never been built upon. It certainly hasn’t been used for a dwelling. The land has become very overgrown which has actually supported a lot of wildlife until the applicant completely removed everything except for the laylandi hedging which seems to be providing a useful screen from Burnisde and the road. I have asked the applicant about clearing some of the nettles and brambles which grow into our garden. I have been accused of fly tipping, illegally parking and the most recent being accused of burying dogs in their land. This was later to be found to be the previous owner. The proposed drawings do not show a modest dwelling. It is substantial and occupies most of the land. The drainage provisions are not clear with rainwater soaking away to the road and into Burnside and Oakholm. The septic tank would discharge into Burnside which sits at a much lower level than the land. Plot Size The land is too small for a dwelling and is not in keeping with neighboring properties. The infrastructure is not in place for another property and will add more traffic to an already congested main and private road. The proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the character of the landscape. There is not ample or even enough space for a dwellinghouse and it would look out of place also affecting neighboring properties. LDP STRAT 1 - Sustainable Development a) The local community has nothing to benefit from this development b) The land is greenspace and should be kept as such c) The infrastructure and services are already at capacity in this area d) What is sustainable about building a dwelling on a greenspace of land? e) N/A f) Completely irrelevant g) N/A h) A dwelling will detract from the natural environment
Page 4
i) A dwelling will add more flooding to the main road. Sewerage discharge into neighbouring properties such as Burnisde would be a SEPA issue. j) N/A k) It will have an adverse effect on the local environment LDP DM1 - completely irrelevant SG LDP ENV 14 - This is not going to be a modest dwelling. 1.5 Storey houses are not modest. It would overlook Oakholm and Burnside and Islay house would overlook the development. The vegetation seepage into Islay House is caused by a lack of maintenance of the land. Response to conclusion This dwelling would add nothing to the local area. We do not want the hillside into Islay House removed and we do not want to overlook a dwelling on a piece of land that is too small for development. There has been no neighbour support for a dwelling on this land. When Islay House was purchased, the land shouldn’t have been removed from Islay House. The applicant saw an opportunity to add to his property portfolio and the only motivation here is financial gain.