Councillor L Scoullar PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 22 April 2005 Bute and Cowal Area Committee Committee Date - 4Th July 2006

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor L Scoullar PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 22 April 2005 Bute and Cowal Area Committee Committee Date - 4th July 2006

26th June 2006

Reference Number: 05/00865/DET Applicants Name: Mr & Mrs G True Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Erection of a single dwelling and renovation of existing boathouse to form guest suite Location: Ascog, Isle of Bute

(A ) THE APPLICATION

Development Requiring Express Planning Permission.

• Erection of single dwelling house on shoreside of A844 road adjacent to existing boathouse • Renovation of boathouse to form guest suite ancillary to proposed dwelling • Formation of vehicular access onto A844 road • Installation of private sewage system (biodisk) and outfall pipe to below low water mark

Other Specified Operations

• Connection to public water network

There is an associated application for Listed Building Consent (ref: 05/00926/LIB) for the renovation of the boathouse (a Category C(S) Listed Building) into guest accommodation associated with the proposed dwellinghouse. A report on this application is also before Members for consideration.

(B ) RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission be Refused for the reason(s) set out on the following page.

(C ) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The site is outwith the settlement of Rothesay as identified under Policy POL HO 1 of the Bute Local Plan 1990 but lies fully within the “settlement zone” identified in the Argyll and Bute Local Plan Finalised Draft 2005.

Whilst there is support in principle from emerging policies for some form of development at this location, the proposal as submitted, by virtue of its excessive scale and massing, would not respect the pattern of development set by other buildings on the shoreward side of the road and would unduly dominate the adjacent boathouse to its detriment. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.

Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning Services

Case Officer: S. Gove 01369-70-8603 Area Team Leader D. Eaglesham 01369-70-8608

"In reaching my assessment on this application, I have had regard to the documents identified in brackets above which are available for public inspection in terms of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985".

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 1

REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 05/00865/DET

1. The proposed dwellinghouse, by virtue of its excessive footprint and vertical scale, is incongruous in the context of other residential buildings on the shoreward side of the A844 road at Ascog, which are distinct from the landward forms of development as they are single storey in height and of a modest size. As a consequence, it would serve to detract significantly from the character and appearance of this Area of Panoramic Quality and the Rothesay Conservation Area and from the setting of the boathouse, which is a Category C(S) Listed Building.

In addition, the proposal cannot be justified in the context of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan Finalised Draft 2005 within which Policy LP HOU 1, although not precluding development at this site, contains the caveat that it should not have an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact.

On the basis of the foregoing, the proposal is contrary to the following Central Government guidance and existing and emerging Development Plan policies:

• Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ (1998);

• National Planning Policy Guideline 18 (‘Planning and the Historic Environment’);

• Planning Advice Note 44 “Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape” (1994);

• STRAT DC 1 and DC 9 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002;

• Policies HO 3, BE 1 and BE 6 of the Bute Local Plan 1990;

• Policies LP HOU 1, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 10, LP ENV 13, LP ENV 14, LP ENV 19 and LP CST 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan Finalised Draft 2005.

2. The proposed development would not be in the interests of road safety, as the proposed access arrangements would not meet the standards required for adequate visibility. The standards for visibility at this location are 35 metres in both directions at a set back distance of 2.5 metres. Whilst visibility to the south is capable of being achieved, the requirement in a northerly direction cannot be met given the presence of the boathouse. The A844 is a classified road and is the main circular route around Bute. In addition, if the ten dwellings on the landward side of the road at this location are developed, there will be a higher level of traffic manoeuvring in the vicinity of the proposed access. For these reasons, it is not considered appropriate to reduce the required sightline of 35 metres in both directions.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 2

APPENDIX RELATIVE TO 05/00865/DET

A. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

(i) Site History

Planning Permission (ref: 99/01897/DET) and Listed Building Consent (ref: 99/01955/LIB) granted on 11th April 2000 for the change of use and alterations of the disused boathouse to form a training facility and formation of vehicular access and parking area. These permissions have now lapsed.

Applications for Listed Building Consent (ref: 02/01535/LIB) and Planning Permission (ref: 02/01541/DET) for the alteration of the boathouse into a dwelling were withdrawn in February 2003 as a result of concerns expressed by the Department as to the details of the renovation.

(ii) Consultations

The Crown Estate (Fax dated 21st April 2005)

No objection to the submission of a planning application.

Public Protection (Memo dated 11th May 2005)

No objections.

SEPA (Letter dated 12th May 2005)

No objections.

Area Roads Manager (Memo dated 19th May 2005)

No objections subject to sightline conditions and access construction.

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (letter dated 8th June 2005)

Objects to the scale and style of the new dwelling. Change of use of boathouse acceptable in principle but concerns regarding design.

Scottish Water

No response received.

(iii) Publicity and Representations

The application has been advertised under Sections 60 and 65 and as a Potential Departure (closing date 27th May 2005). Representations have been received from the following nine sources:

G & L Ainslie, Old Manse, Ascog, Isle of Bute (letter dated 4th May 2005); D W Lindsay, Tarfside, Ascog, Isle of Bute (letter dated 17th May 2005); Norman & Gail Foster, Seal Lodge, Ascog, Isle of Bute (letter dated 25th May 2005); Colin Slinn, Capital Developments (GB) Ltd, 60 Montague Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (letter dated 26th May 2005 and e-mails dated 30th September, 6th October and 15th November 2005); A R Davidson, Tarfside, Ascog, Isle of Bute (letter dated 26th May 2005); Bute Community Council, c/o Mr Julian Hankinson, Craigielea Cottage, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute (letter dated 25th July 2005); Ian Jack, 44 Northolme Road, London and Rockvale, Wellpark Road, Rothesay (letter received 6th September 2005); Profesor Gavin Stamp, 15 Belle Vue Court, 122d Devonshire Road, Forest Hill, London (letter dated 21st September 2005); Rosalind Sharpe, 44 Northolme Road, London (letter dated 29th September 2005).

The points raised can be summarised as follows:

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 3

i. The loss of a Victorian Garden in a conservation area. The size, scale and style of the development would be inconsistent with the locale and would be of detriment to visual amenity when viewed from the sea.

ii. Concerns are raised over the increased use of the already hazardous road.

iii. Concern that there is virtually no two storey development (other than Ascog Church and the Pier building) on the shoreside of the coast road from Port Bannatyne to Kerrycroy. Generally, the few developments that are on the shoreside are relatively unobtrusive.

Comment: The above issues will be addressed in the Assessment section below.

iv. There would be a large impact on nature and wildlife with the felling of trees.

Comment: The site has no statutory designation in respect of nature conservation. The issue of possible tree loss will be addressed in the Assessment section below.

v. Concerns that the proposal would have a probable negative effect on property resale value.

Comment: This issue does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case.

vi. It is contended that the applicant does not own a part of the land under which it is proposed to construct the outfall pipe and that the owner of this land has not been properly served with the relevant ownership notification. The application should be withdrawn and the proper notification served at the correct time. In any case, the owner of the land is not prepared to allow any third party to construct an outfall or drain onto, over or under their property.

Comment: The agent was alerted to this procedural matter and, on 10th October 2005, served Notice No.1 under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 on the company purporting to be the owner of the subject land. The Department considers that it is procedurally competent to serve ownership notification whilst an application is being processed and that the interests of the “owner” of the land have not been prejudiced, as they have had the requisite 21-day period in which to make further representation. Such representations will be taken into account in the determination of this application.

The issue of who actually owns the land referred to and whether the owner’s consent will actually be forthcoming for the discharge pipe is essentially a matter for the various parties and, if permission were ultimately to be granted, would be included within the “Notes to Applicant”.

vii. Ascog should not be considered as a part of the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay for the purposes of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (Finalised Draft). The legal boundary of the old Royal Burgh of Rothesay extends only as far as Montford. Ascog is within the Parish of Kingarth as regards any documents recorded in the Registers of Scotland. Ascog does not enjoy the amenities of Rothesay (e.g. no mains sewerage). Based upon its population, Ascog should be classed as a ‘minor settlement’.

Comment: The boundary of the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay within the Finalised Draft of the Local Plan is based upon an assessment of the built environment as opposed to historical or legal circumstances. Such a designation has been included within both the Consultative Draft (2003) and the Finalised Draft (2005) and no representations have been made in respect of this issue.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 4

(iv) Applicant’s supporting Information

Supporting information has been submitted, on behalf of the applicants (letters dated 21st April and 12th August 2005 and 15th February 2006). This information can be summarised as follows:

• Approval of the application would not set a precedent for further development to the south. The site can be defined as ‘brownfield’, which previously formed part of the curtilage of an adjoining house. The land to the south has never been developed and would fall within the definition of ‘greenfield’. Planning policy favours the development of ‘brownfield’ sites in preference to ‘greenfield’ sites;

• The settlement is already characterised by dwellings being built close to the shore in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries;

• The dwelling is of an appropriate scale both in terms of its relationship with the size of plot and with other dwellings in the immediate vicinity. It would be of a lesser scale than the two- storey buildings recently approved on the landward side of the A844 at this location and there are considerably larger existing residential properties in the vicinity;

• Current design demonstrates varied massing on each elevation. The removal of the one-and- a-half storey element would create more uniform elevations and reduce the amount of accommodation;

• Design elements have been borrowed from both existing and proposed dwellings in the vicinity and landscaping proposals have been submitted that focus on using appropriate species that help the transition from rural to urban land use at the critical southern edge of the site;

• Development of the proposed dwelling would release sufficient land value to enable restoration of the listed boathouse. The scheme as proposed is economically viable; reducing the size of the building would jeopardise the whole project;

• Achieving visibility splays of 35 metres by 2.5 metres might be difficult, particularly in a northerly direction as it would involve removing the first half metre of the listed boathouse. It is contended that 20 metres by 2.5 metres should be considered acceptable since it has no impact on the boathouse and allows a better relationship between the access and the dwelling. If, however, the greater distance is required, the access point could be moved to the southernmost part of the application site.

B. POLICY OVERVIEW

Central Government Guidance

Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ (1998) states that, within Conservation Areas, new development that is well designed, respects the character of the area and contributes to its enhancement should be welcomed.

In terms of the setting of Listed Buildings, the Memorandum states that development capable of having an impact may lie outwith the curtilage of the listed structure. The potential consequences of development should be carefully assessed in light of the particular circumstances of each case.

National Planning Policy Guideline 18 (‘Planning and the Historic Environment’) advises that Planning Authorities should examine the impact of proposals upon the character and appearance of the whole Conservation Area. If any proposed development would conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the designated area, there should be a presumption against granting planning permission.

In addition, it advises that Planning Authorities should examine the impact of proposals upon particular features of a building that justify its listed status; the building’s setting and its contribution to the townscape or landscape; and the extent to which the proposed works would bring benefits to the community, including the enhancement of the environment.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 5

Planning Advice Note 44 “Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape” (1994) provides advice on how improvements can be secured in the environmental quality of new housing developments in terms of their relationship to the landscape. It advocates the use of a design process that involves an analysis of all of the constraints and opportunities inherent in the site under consideration, the ranking of these in importance and the development of the most appropriate solution to satisfy them.

Argyll & Bute Structure Plan 2002

STRAT DC 1 encourages, within the main towns and the smaller towns and villages, the development of up to medium scale development (between 6 and 30 dwellings) on appropriate infill, rounding-off and redevelopment sites.

STRAT DC 9 states that development that damages or undermines the historic, architectural or cultural qualities of the historic environment will be resisted; particularly if, inter alia, it would affect a Conservation Area or the setting of a Listed Building.

Bute Local Plan 1990

The settlement strategy for Bute stresses the need for consolidation of the existing settlements, including Rothesay. Policy POL HO 1 encourages residential development of infill, rounding-off and redevelopment sites within existing settlements.

To complement the above policy, the Bute Local Plan sought to restrict development on the periphery of settlements, thereby protecting agricultural land and the appearance of the landscape (particularly around the southern fringe of the Rothesay Outstanding Conservation Area).

The mechanism for achieving the above objective was to formulate Policy POL HO 3, which introduced the ‘Countryside Safeguarding Zone’ around Rothesay, Port Bannatyne, Kilchattan and Kingarth. Within this zone, small-scale residential development will not generally be permitted nor will it be considered as infill or rounding off.

The entire application site is located within the ‘Countryside Safeguarding Zone’ and, on this basis, the proposal is contrary to Policy POL HO 3 of the Bute Local Plan 1990.

Policy POL BE 1 encourages new works or uses that would result in the preservation and/or enhancement of Listed Buildings and seeks to protect such buildings and their settings from inappropriate new development.

Policy POL BE 6 seeks to prevent any deterioration in the character or setting of the Rothesay Outstanding Conservation Area through unsympathetic new development and changes of use.

Policy POL BE 16 encourages the retention of existing trees within settlements and seeks to resist the destruction of trees, woodland and hedges through the control of development.

Argyll and Bute Local Plan Finalised Draft 2005

On the Finalised Draft Local Plan, the application site lies within the ‘settlement boundary’ within which residential infill and rounding-off developments are encouraged under Policy LP HOU 1 unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. The site also lies within a Conservation Area and an Area of Panoramic Quality

Policy LP ENV 1 seeks to resist development that would have a significant adverse effect on the integrity or character of, inter alia, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

Policy LP ENV 7 seeks to resist development likely to have an adverse impact on trees and will ensure, through the development control process, that adequate provision is made for the preservation of woodland/trees.

Policy ENV 10 seeks to resist development in Areas of Panoramic Quality where their scale, location or design will have an adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless it can be demonstrated that any significant adverse effects would be clearly outweighed by social and economic benefits of national or regional importance.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 6

Policy ENV 13 presumes against development that would harm the character of a Listed Building or its setting. All development should be of a high quality and conform to Historic Scotland’s Memorandum of Guidance.

Policy ENV 14 presumes against development that does not maintain or enhance the character or amenity of a Conservation Area. New development should be of the highest quality, respect and enhance the architectural qualities of the area and conform to Historic Scotland’s Memorandum of Guidance.

Policy ENV 19 requires a high standard of appropriate design in terms of setting, layout and density.

Policy LP CST 1 generally supports coastal development within existing settlements where, inter alia, they require a coastal location and respect the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area.

C. ASSESSMENT

Principle of Residential Development

As stated above, the application site is contrary to the residential policies contained within the Bute Local Plan 1990, as it is located within the ‘Countryside Safeguarding Zone’. However, the principle of development on the site is not precluded by the Argyll and Bute Local Plan Finalised Draft 2005 as the entire site is located within the ‘settlement boundary’ of Rothesay (designated a ‘Main Town’).

Policy LP HOU 1 encourages small, medium and large-scale residential development unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. As will be explored later in this report, there are significant concerns in respect of the proposal’s environmental impact with the consequence that the proposal is considered to be contrary to both Policy POL HO 3 of the Bute Local Plan 1990 and LP HOU 1 of the Finalised Draft 2005.

Character of Conservation Area

Ascog is at the very southern tip of Rothesay. Generally, the buildings are located on the landward side of the A844 road except for two small nodes of shoreside development: firstly, a group of relatively modern dwellings as one enters Ascog from a northerly direction; and, secondly, surrounding Ascog Point.

The latter group comprises: Ascog Church (a ‘B’-listed mid-nineteenth century building with shallow-pitched gables and an Italianate belfry); a semi-detached block of two single storey cottages (Invergyle Cottage and Stella Matutina); a detached single-storey cottage (Lauret); and the single storey boathouse. The church is located slightly prior to a bend in the road whilst the cottages are located at the bend. Once the bend is negotiated, the boathouse appears directly on the roadside. Thereafter, after a sparse group of trees, a vista opens up looking down the Bute shoreline to Kerrycroy and over to the Ayrshire coast.

When travelling along the A844 road in a northerly direction, the application site can be viewed for a considerable distance. At present, it is characterised by the group of trees referred to in the preceding paragraph; glimpses of the boathouse can be achieved, dependent upon the time of year.

Proposed Dwelling – Relationship with Settlement

Since the application site is located within the ‘settlement boundary’ as shown in the Argyll and Bute Local Plan, some form of development could be acceptable within the site. Since the site is almost certainly the last piece of developable ground on the shoreward side of the A844 road at Ascog, an acceptable scheme need not set a precedent for further shoreside development. Nevertheless, it is considered that this proposal, by virtue of its excessive scale and massing, would not relate successfully to the neighbouring buildings on the shoreward side of the road.

Proposed Scale, Design and Massing and Impact Upon Setting of Listed Building

There are elements of the proposed dwelling that could be termed ‘traditional’ such as the wet dash render external wall finish, the natural slate roof covering and the vertically-proportioned fenestration. However, the scale and massing of the building should be examined in the context of the other shoreside developments immediately to the north of the application site. The church clearly has an ecclesiastical appearance; the dwellings and disused boathouse are single storey in height and modest in floor space.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 7

The proposed dwelling would take up an external footprint of approximately 246 sq.m., which is more than 100 sq.m. greater than the largest of the other non-ecclesiastical buildings on the shoreward side of the road. To accentuate the mass of the proposal, the southern half of the building would incorporate a partial upper floor, the height of which (to the roof ridge) would be approximately 6.5 metres.

Despite the agent’s comments in respect of introducing variety to the design, it is considered that the upper floor element would increase the visual prominence of the building on a site where a low key, modest approach would be more appropriate. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the Rothesay Conservation Area contrary to the relevant guidance and policies referred to in Section (B) above.

Given the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the Category C(S) listed boathouse, the impact of the new building would be considerable. Whilst the boathouse is highly likely to be an ancillary building in any scheme that involves a new build on the site (and its sympathetic upgrading is a very worthwhile objective in view of its present condition), it is considered that the proposed dwelling, by virtue of its excessive scale and massing, would physically dominate the listed structure to a significant and detrimental degree when approached from both the north and south, contrary to the relevant guidance and policies referred to in Section (B) above.

The agent has advanced the argument that the proposed development would release sufficient land value to enable restoration of the boathouse. There is the potential, therefore, that if this Planning Permission is refused, there will be no plans to renovate the boathouse. Given that ten dwellings have been approved across the road from this site (see next section), the Department would suggest that the boathouse could be used in association with one of these dwellings, if not by other dwellings at Ascog.

Cumulative Impact and Precedent of Permission for 10 Dwellings

The design of the proposed dwelling (partly) complements the intended development of ten dwellings on the landward side of the A844 road at this location. The application for this development (ref: 05/01800/DET) was approved by the Area Committee at a formal PAN 41 hearing held in Rothesay in January 2006. This Department felt that the three substantial villas to the front of the site (which would be the most visually prominent part of the development) would sympathetically reflect the existing forms of development on the landward side of the road at Ascog.

It is considered that there is a distinct difference between the character of the landward side and the shoreward side of the road and that the approval of substantial villas to the north of Ascog Mansion should not set a precedent for a substantial dwelling on the current application site.

Road Safety

A new vehicular access is to be formed onto the A844 road with the existing stone wall along the frontage of the site to be realigned and lowered to no greater than 1 metre above the level of the carriageway.

The Area Roads Manager is seeking the provision of visibility splays of 35 metres in both directions at a set back distance of 2.5 metres. Whilst visibility to the south can be achieved, such a requirement in a northerly direction would involve the removal of part of the boathouse. In the first instance, the agent has suggested that a sightline of 20 metres to the north could be considered as being acceptable; as a second option, he has indicated that the access could be relocated to the southern boundary of the site. This is not his preferred alternative as he considers that it would provide a less than ideal relationship between the dwelling and the access, and would result in a greater area of hardstanding.

From a road safety perspective, the A844 is a classified road, the main circular route around Bute. In addition, if the ten dwellings on the landward side of the road at this location is developed, there will be a higher level of traffic manoeuvring in the vicinity of the proposed access. For these reasons, it is not considered appropriate to reduce the required sightline from 35 metres to 20 metres.

In order for this issue to be properly addressed, an amended access point would require to be identified and, if Members are minded to approve the application, a condition should be attached in respect of the point of access. However, on the basis of the current plans, there is a road safety reason for refusal.

Trees/Landscaping

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 8

There are some trees on the site, in particular clustered around the boathouse and at the southern boundary but it is not considered that these are of significant value to the visual amenity of the Rothesay Conservation Area. If the application was to be approved, a landscaping condition could be attached that would satisfy the terms of existing and emerging Development Plan policies.

Infrastructure

Whilst Scottish Water was consulted but made no response, other applications in the vicinity of the site indicate that a public water supply is available but that there is no public sewerage system. In the application for the ten dwellings (ref: 05/01800/DET) approvedd in January 2006, the lack of a public sewer was not a major issue but a note was issued to the applicant that, should such a system become available in the future, the development should be connected into it. If the present application were ultimately to be approved, a similar note could be attached.

Requirement for Hearing

Whilst the Department recommends refusal of this application, should Members be minded to approve the proposal, they should give consideration as to whether a hearing should take place prior to a final decision being made.

If approved as a “minor departure” (which, given the Development Plan context, it would require to be), then Members should take into account whether representations from nine sources constitute “substantial”. This Department’s advice is that this number is not “substantial” and, therefore, no hearing would be required.

D. CONCLUSION

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal involves the erection of a dwelling which, by virtue of its excessive scale and massing, would have an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the Rothesay Conservation Area and the setting of the boathouse (a Category C(S) Listed Building) contrary to the relevant central government guidance and existing and emerging Development Plan policies.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000242\M00002595\AI00030023\00865WRSINGLEDWELLINGASCOG0.DOC 9