COUNCIL MINUTE of MEETING OF AREA COMMITTEE FOR MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND SITE INSPECTION, LAND EAST OF GLEANN A GAOIDH, BY , ISLE OF ISLAY held on MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2006

Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay (Chair)

Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Bruce Robertson

Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Development Control Officer Peter Bain, Development Control Officer

The Mr Neil Wood Applicant

Objectors Mr Douglas Bouttell (Spokesperson) Mr Mitchell Mrs Mitchell

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor Kelly.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

05/02063/OUT W.C. and M.I. Wood Outline Erection of single detached dwellinghouse and septic tank Land East of Gleann A Gaoidh, by Portnahaven, Isle of Islay

The Chairman commenced by introducing those present and explaining the procedure.

Richard Kerr on behalf of the Head of Planning explained the reasons for the recommendations of approval as per the reports.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc APPLICANT Mr Wood reiterated what had been stated in the report by the Head of Planning and explained to the Committee that he had had discussions with the Planning Department prior to applying for planning permission in order to locate a suitable site. He also stated that he has a strip of land which would act as a natural barrier and he would be cutting back trees at the roadside in order to increase visibility at the access point.

OBJECTORS Mr Bouttell introduced himself to the Committee and distributed a handout, which outlined the main point in support of the objections (Appendix 1). He then went on to discuss each point in detail, a copy of which is attached to this minute (Appendix 2).

COUNCILLORS

Councillor Hay asked for clarification of what outline planning permission allowed the applicant to do and Richard Kerr explained that it was the first of a 2 part process, an approval in principal, but that a further application for the reserved matters must be then submitted. Outline planning permission is valid for 3 years.

Richard then explained that Scottish Water have not objected to the application but they cannot guarantee connection to the water supply until an application is made for this as it is operated on a first come, first served basis.

Councillor Currie then asked if the skyline would be greatly affected if this planning permission was granted and Richard Kerr explained that as the house would be set in low lying land, the impact on the skyline would be minimal.

Councillor Colville asked about the visibility at the entrance to the site and Richard Kerr stated that if the applicant cut away the trees at the side of the road, the visibility would be improved substantially and there should therefore be no problem.

SUMMING UP

The applicant reinforced what he had said earlier in the meeting and explained that his application meets the criteria as far as the Planning Department are concerned and stated that they had never had any problems with the water supply in the last 20 years.

Richard Kerr then explained that it is a difficult stretch of land to find plots, and this particular plot will be the least intrusive for the countryside.

Mr Boutell emphasisied his points as made earlier, urged the Committee to make the right decision and thanked them for going to Islay in order to see the site and meet the objectors.

Richard Kerr the stated that the report should be amended at condition 4, part 6 to read: “Any porches shall have traditional “peaked” roofs;” with any reference to dormers taken out.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc DECISION

Councillor McKinlay moved that the planning application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons stated in the report by the Head of Planning, as amended by the deletion of any reference to dormers in condition 4. Councillor Findlay seconded the motion.

There were no amendments, so the motion was carried unanimously.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc APPENDIX 1

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc APPENDIX 2 An Gleann Site Visit - 20.2.2006

1. My name is Douglas Kennedy Bouttell and I have been asked to be spokesperson on behalf of all the objectors with regard to this application for Outline Planning permission. There is no relationship, collusive or otherwise between me and any of the objectors, however I do know four of them, to speak to, and I’m on the Christmas card list of one of them. For the avoidance of any doubt I would like to make it clear that there is nothing personal between the objectors and the applicant. I would also ask that the Committee members uphold the democratic process and deliberate all aspects of this application under the strict governance of Argyll and Bute Council’s code of conduct for members of council and in particular those parts of the code titled Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Propriety and Objectivity.

2 If we take the Planning Application Report and start at the paragraph titled (A) Determining issues and material considerations we see that no mention is made, at this point, regarding the fact that the proposed site is in a Rural Opportunity Area. I would refer you to the Minutes of Meeting of Mid Argyll Kintyre & Islay Area Committee held on 2.11.05 and in particular the Development Services Planning Application Report prepared by Peter Bain. He says and I quote “However, following public consultation, representations have been lodged to the disposition of the ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ throughout all of Argyll and Bute. Consequently, ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ cannot be considered as a material planning consideration in the determinations of applications at the present time”. The Planning application in this case was withdrawn. This meeting was attended by Councillors Colville, Findlay, Kelly, McMillan, Currie, Hay, and McAlpine.

Reference is made to Rural Opportunity Areas on page 35 of the Planning Report in answer to one of the objections, however, our interpretation of this statement is merely that the goalposts have been changed from the Report written for the November meeting and the report written for this one.

Reference was also made to Planning Advice Note number 72 inferring that the application was consistent with the advice. One of the pieces of advice in this Planning Advice Note, not mentioned in this particular Planning report, is that “Attention should be paid to established building lines and orientation of any buildings in the area. Overlooking should be avoided.”

(B)Conditions and reasons relative to application 05/02063/OUT Item 4(i) states that the dwelling shall be single storey in height, however item 4(vi) States that dormers (which are encouraged in the design) shall have traditional peaked roof. We therefore have a house which is single storey but is encouraged to have two floors. I would refer you back to Planning advice note No 72 “Attention should be paid to established building lines and orientation of any buildings in the area. Overlooking should be avoided.” Overlooking would be further exacerbated by the addition of another floor.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc Items 7 & 8 are indicative of an effort to agree an element of road safety. Without seeing the exact design of the bellmouth or visibility splays I would estimate or hazard a guess to at least 300m² of the site being cleared in order to create the site access. With regard to areas I would like to clarify some matters of fact.

The site is stated to be 0.65acres in area, however, as a Surveyor of many years this seemed somewhat conservative especially seeing the site as defined in the Application's 1: 2500 scale Location Plan.

0.65 acres equates to 2632m². Using the Ordnance Survey GGP system I calculate the site area to be approximately 4500m² i.e 1.11 acres or almost twice that stated in the Planning Report. Is this another error?

A. Appendix Relative to Application 05/02063/OUT The Policy overview looks fairly impressive quoting Structure Plans and Local Plans however the report seems to be fairly selective in it's content. There was no reference, for example, to page 10 of the Planning Advice note ‘Housing in the Countryside’. This advice note clearly states on this page, and I quote “But it is important to ensure that any new development does not overload the capacity of current services and infrastructure". This omission begs the question - Why does the Planning Report fail to mention this?

The Scottish Executives publication ‘Rural Solutions are required for Rural locations’ even offers advice on the Role of Councillors. It states :- “Development in the countryside can be sensitive politically. It is very important that there is a solid core of planning policy and guidance, which is accepted, understood and applied consistently. If there is to be more development in the countryside it has to be well planned and then implemented properly. The process has to be seen to be fair and impartial and councillors must demonstrate a commitment to policy”.

B. Other Material Considerations (ii) The Consultations with the public utilities are fairly well covered elsewhere in the Planning report, however, Scottish Water comments are not known in detail to the objectors. As this subject is dealt under (iii) Publicity then I will speak about the water supply at that point. I would also propose to clarify the sequence of events regarding neighbour notification in a similar fashion.

Points of representation or objections are as stated in the report, however, some clarification is required with regard to the comments and answers to these objections given by the Planning Department.

Starting on page 31 0f the Planning Application Report. The objection to the visibility of the proposed house should be obvious especially with one of the conditions giving the developer the scope to paint the building in white. The physical size is not yet known, however, with a wallhead height of say 2.2 metres, a minimum roof pitch of 37 degrees and a gable depth of say 10 metres would equate to a ridge height of 6.60 metres and that does not include the exposed element of underbuilding i.e. the height above ground level could be in excess of 7 metres or 23 feet in old money.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc Again we would ask for some consistency. The adjacent proprietor to the west at Easter Ellister had a planning application for a new house refused by this committee when heard on 7th September 2005. One of the main reasons stated by Tim Williams was that "by virtue of its elevation …..detract from landscape setting of its surroundings" He (Tim Williams) also stated in this application and again I quote "It should be noted that good design of buildings in the countryside should not need to rely on buildings having to be hidden by otherwise unnecessary planting", which brings me neatly to our next point.

The planning report for this application totally contradicts the previous statement. On page 32 it is stated by the same Tim Williams that "a suitable landscaping scheme would be a condition of its approval" Where is the consistency of approach?

With regard to this application creating a precedent we are not encouraged by the statement that "the capacity of this location to absorb further residential development is considered to be extremely limited". It does not say "non existent" it says "extremely limited". In other words there could be further development allowed.

With regard to the public services and in particular the water supply we are totally confused by the response from Scottish Water. On the one hand they don't object to the application and on the other they will not guarantee connection. I think that is known as sitting on the fence. The existing house at An Gleann has two cold water storage tanks installed. This is because the existing water supply is so erratic.

There are health and safety issues here. Even if the applicant obtains Full Planning permission to build a house on this plot the Building Control Department would throw out any building Warrant application as the Technical Standards, Part E on page 2 at para 4 state that "Suitable provision must be made for access to the outside of a building for fire fighting and rescue vehicles from a public road. A water supply installation must be available……". Furthermore section 6(102) of the Housing Scotland Act 2001 clearly states that a house will meet the tolerable standard if it "Has an adequate piped supply of wholesome water available within the house".

What is the point of granting Outline Planning Permission if the known facts regarding the state of the existing water supply are left out of the equation? The Planning officer seems to have totally missed the point regarding the supply of water for fire fighting purposes, in the event of fire at either properties, and we would question his expertise on this subject. It would not matter which house was on fire. There is not enough water pressure to service the existing house with a wholesome supply, all year round never mind having enough on tap for fire fighting purposes.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc We take exception to the statement made that "this application has been competently submitted". For the avoidance of any doubt the original application was dated 14th of June 2005 and was signed by the agent. Not only was it signed by the agent it stated that the neighbours were notified on 15th June 2005 and that the plot was situated at Octofad Farm. This contravened the requirements of Article 8 and Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Procedure) Order 1992 as it contains a statement which the agent knew to be false or misleading. This means he was guilty of an offence. How the Planning Officer can state that the application is competent beggers belief.

The question of ribbon development would not appear to have been grasped, appreciated or understood either. As a general opinion it appears to me that Bruichladdich, Port Charlotte and Portnahaven/Port Wemyss were clearly defined and identifiable villages. In recent times Bruichladdich has extended it's boundary to Coultorsay to the west and Braeside to the East. Smaller settlements like have also expanded in a linear fashion with Nerabus almost joined up with Octofad.

Instead of clearly identifiable settlements we now have all villages of the Rhinns subjected to a Planning policy which intends to have them all joined up. The application before us today is just another piece of infill. In Planning Speak you can call it rounding off , however, it is the thin end of the wedge. If this application is successful we would predict that another application would not be long in being submitted to build a house to the West of ‘An Glean’. This in turn would encroach on the boundary at Easter Ellister to the West. At the top of the hill to the East we now have the new quarrying operation which is indicative further linear progression being allowed between Octofad and An Gleann. The recent new build between Easter Ellister and Wester Ellister on the North side of the road again illustrates the insidious joining up of the Rhinns settlements. The relevance of standing on the pier at was again lost on the planners. This was merely a simple statement to allow the committee to see the bigger picture regarding Ribboning on a practical level.

F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc