Argyll and Bute Council Development Services Delegated Or Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No : 13/02075/PP Planning Hierarchy : Local Applicant : Mr Seumas MacArthur Proposal : Erection of flag pole (retrospective) Site Address : Foreshore, Opposite 7 Shore Street, Portnahaven, Isle of Islay DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of flagpole. (ii) Other specified operations • Display of flag (flag to be flown is unspecified); • Painting of rock. (B) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend retrospective planning permission is refused for the reasons contained within this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: None. (D) HISTORY: 12/00265/ENOTH2 – Unauthorised erection of flagpole – case opened on 02.10.12 and closed on 15.10.12 due to the flagpole being removed. (E) PUBLICITY: Listed Building/Conservation Advert - Expiry date: 31.10.2013 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: 32 letters of support and 4 letters of objection have been received. (i) Representations received from: LETTERS OF SUPPORT Cllr Anne Horn. Councillor Ward 2 – Kintyre and the Islands Mr Malcolm McLugash, 6 Shore Stree,t Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll PA47 7SH Mr John J MacArthur, 4 Shore Street, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll PA47 7SH Mrs Alice Black, 3 Campbell Place, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll PA47 7SQ Mr Ronald MacDonald Bell, 50 Bayview, Port Wemyss, Portnahaven, Isle of Islay Mr And Mrs Peter And Moira MacGillivray, 20 King Street, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll PA47 7SP Mr Ian Turner, 7 King Stree,t Portnahaven, Isle of Islay PA47 7SP Mr Donald G Woodrow, 37 Bayview, Port Wemyss, Islay Mr John Livingstone, 1 West End, Port Charlotte, Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA48 7TN Miss Karen Brodin, 3 Campbell Place, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA47 7SQ J Glover, The Boatyard, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA47 7SP Miss Lucy MacArthur, 16 Hawthorn Terrace, Bowmore, Isle Of Islay PA437HS Mr A M Dyball, 24 Stanalane, Bowmore, Isle of Islay PA43 7LA Mr & Mrs Douglas Clark, 1 King Street, Portnahaven, Isle of Islay PA47 7SP Mr Steven Donaghy, 78 Inglefield Street, Govanhill, Glasgow G42 7AW Mr Z Dyball, 24 Stanalane, Bowmore, Isle Of Islay PA43 7LA Mr Mark Dyball, 24 Stanalane Bowmore, Isle Of Islay PA43 7LA Malcolm T Anderson, 22 Shore Street, Port Wemyss, Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA47 7ST Mr Robert McLetchie, 14 King Street, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA47 7SP Mr Craig MacArthur, 16 Hawthorn Terrace, Bowmore, Isle Of Islay Pa437hs Charles N McKnight, 20 Daly Gardens, Blantyre, Glasgow G72 9RR Mr Craig Stewart, 176 Chirnside Road, Hillington, Glasgow G52 2LQ Mr Greg Morrison, 11 Mansfield Terrace, Port Ellen, Isle Of Islay PA42 7BL Mr David Dybal,l 4 Stanalane Bowmore, Isle Of Islay PA43 7LA Miss Emma Kelly, 214 Linburn Road, Penilee, Glasgow G52 4EN Miss Amanda Richards, 3F Simpson Garden,s Barrhead, Glasgow G78 1RA Dr Willie Wilson, 57 Gallowhill Rd, Lenzie, Glasgow G66 4AP Miss Sharree Clark, 4 Millbrae Terrace, Bunessan, Isle Of Mull Argyll And Bute PA67 6DQ Mrs Mary MacDonald, 9 Queen Street, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay PA47 7SJ Major Margaret Macdonald, 8 Crom Street, Port Wemyss, Isle of Islay PA47 7SS Miss Elizabeth Alexander, 8 Crom Street, Port Wemyss, Isle of Islay PA47 7SS Iain MacLean, 15 Philip Drive, Amble, Morpeth, Northumberland NE65 0QU LETTERS OF OBJECTION B Ross, Dower Cottage, High Street, Portnahaven, Islay Argyll Dean Simmons, 1 High Street, Portnahaven, Isle of Islay PA47 7SN Mr S Aguiar, 188 Deveonshire Road, London W4 Mr Trevor Harvey, The Haven, 9 Shore Street, Portnahaven, Isle Of Islay Argyll (ii) Summary of issues raised: OBJECTIONS: • People from all over the world visit Portnahaven and the flag flying at the entrance to the village is enough. Comment: Whilst the Planning Department is aware that a flag was displayed at the entrance to the village this flag has since been removed, however the flagpole remains. In that instance it is noted that the flagpole is simply tied to a piece of farm machinery and as such is viewed as having an insufficient degree of permanence in its installation to be viewed as ‘development’ having regard to the provisions of S.26 of the Act. • As a tourist I come to see the natural beauty of the bay and do not find the flag to be a tourist attraction. Comment: It is noted that in this instance it is the flagpole which is subject to consideration and not the flag(s) which are intended to be flown. • As Portnahaven is a Conservation Area, developments detrimental to this designation should be resisted and the flag is considered detrimental and should be removed. • Portnahaven has a natural foreshore with many basking seals on the rocks and a lighthouse, the flagpole detracts from this. Comment: Officers detailed assessment of the impact of the flag pole upon views out of the settlements and the character and appearance of the conservation area is set out in Appendix A. • The flagpole is against Development Plan Policies, LP CST 4 – Development Impact on Natural Foreshore and LP ENV 14 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas. No justification was given for the flagpole located on the foreshore and the flagpole does not preserve or enhance the foreshore failing to meet these requirements of these policies. Comment: Consideration of the relevant Development Plan policies are set out in Appendix A. • The painting of the cement/concrete is of poor appearance. Comment: The extent of painting of the rock on the foreshore is not considered significant enough in this instance to merit consideration as ‘development’ in its own right; however it should be noted that the rock has recently been repainted from bright white to a dull grey. • The flagpole can be seen from every window of my house and I am affected by the unauthorised development which is on public open space. Comment: Impact upon the view from private property is not a material planning consideration. • The granting of consent would be setting a precedent for other applicants to place private flagpoles in such locations. Comment: It is considered that the granting of this retrospective planning application may set a precedent which might erode the effectiveness of the provisions of policy LP CST 1 in seeking to resist unnecessary development on the foreshore – this aspect is addressed in detail in Appendix A. • This is a private flag pole but a public experience on the foreshore. Comment: This is correct, whilst the applicant claims that the flag pole is intended to provide some community benefit it is noted that the application is submitted by a private individual who would retain sole control over which flag is flown and when it is flown. The only reasonable control that the Planning Authority would retain would be to take enforcement action if a flag deemed to be an ‘advertisement’ having regard to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regs 1984 were to be flown. • It is feared that further activities in relation to the flagpole would occur in the future without consultation. Comment: This is not a material planning consideration; in the event that planning permission were to be granted the applicant would be able to display the flag of any nation state or non-commercial organisation without recourse to the Planning Authority. Display of commercial material on the flag pole would however require ‘advertisement consent’ and would remain within the control of the Planning Authority. • The applicant should site the flagpole on his own land. Comment: The applicant is able to submit a further application for the flagpole within his own land should he wish to, which would be given due consideration. The current application is for a site outwith the applicant’s ownership and is being assessed as submitted. • The applicant states on the application form that the works started on 12 July 2007 which is incorrect, the works on the unauthorised development did not commence until the first half of 2011 and completed in the summer of that year. Comment: The planning department was first aware of this unauthorised development in October 2012. No further comment can be given in respect of when the unauthorised development commenced, or more pertinently, when the development was substantially completed. It is however known to Officers that the flag pole was dismantled for an unspecified period from October 2012 over the winter period following the requirement for planning permission having been raised with the applicant • The letters of support that are patriotic in respect of the saltire flag have no meaning in planning terms, the planning process is not concerned about flags. Comment: Members are advised that material weight should not be given to the nationality of the intended flag to be flown from the flag pole. As noted above, the application is for the erection of a flag pole from which it would be the prerogative of the applicant to fly the flag of any nation state or non- commercial organisation that he chooses. SUPPORT: • The development enhances the view of this attractive fishing village. The flagpole does not raise a detrimental impact on the surroundings and should be allowed to remain. • The flagpole is well constructed and its continued use should most certainly be permitted it lends a bit of lively, colourful decoration to an otherwise sleepy village. Comment: Officers detailed assessment of the impact of the flag pole upon views out of the settlement and the character and appearance of the conservation area is set out in Appendix A.