and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure 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) () Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______

Reference No : 10/00007/PPP

Planning Hierarchy : Local application.

Applicant : Mr Peter Wilkinson

Proposal : Erection of detached house and improvements to vehicular access.

Site Address : Land at Renfield House, Eccles Road, Hunters Quay, , Argyll ______

DECISION ROUTE

(i) Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Erection of dwellinghouse (indicative footprint only); • Improvements to vehicular access (no details); • Formation of car parking/turning area (indicative); • Associated landscaping and boundary treatments (indicative);

(ii) Other specified operations

• Connection to public water main and public sewer. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reason(s) set out overleaf. ______

(C) HISTORY:

A planning application (ref. 03/01508/DET) for a detached dwelling on the site was refused on 3 rd February 2004 on grounds of existing settlement pattern, density and removal of land supporting Renfield House. A subsequent appeal (ref. 04/00010/REFPLA, P/PPA/130/111) was dismissed on 14 th October 2004 where the Reporter included within his reasons for refusal, loss of curtilage to Renfield House, settlement cramming and overlooking of East Lodge below

Around June 2003, the applicant carried out preparatory works to the site in respect of site levelling, the erection of a blockwork retaining wall, gate piers and boundary walls and fence, and improvements to the access. The unauthorised works were the subject of an associated report (Ref 03/00191/ENFOTH) which was tabled at the Bute and Area Committee on 26 th February 2006 where it was noted that a retrospective application would be made for the retention of the unauthorised access, turning area and ground reprofiling.

An application (ref. 06/02106/DET) to regularise these unauthorised works including the formation of access/opening and levelled hardstanding area (retrospective) was submitted on 29 th September 2006 but remains invalid. The unauthorised works are still in situ.

Planning permission (ref. 07/01096/DET) for the demolition of the existing care home and erection of 41 bed nursing home (class 8), formation of car parking area and erection of greenhouse was granted on 10th October 2007. This permission has not been implemented and Renfield House is currently vacant having transferred the facility to Ashgrove Nursing Home in Kirn.

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads Manager (response dated 4 th June 2010): No objections subject to conditions regarding visibility splays, width and gradient of access, car parking and turning and advisory notes regarding a Road Opening Permit.

Scottish Water (response dated 4 th May 2010): No objections in principle. Potential wastewater capacity issues. Advisory notes recommended.

Hunters Quay Community Council (response received 12 th May 2010): Object on grounds of site history, access, right of way, settlement character, overlooking, overdevelopment and surface water drainage (refer to points i –vii in Section (F) below): ______(E) PUBLICITY:

The application was advertised under Regulation 20(1) Advert Statement (expiry date 21 st May 2010).

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

Thirteen letters of objection have been received from: D Rarity, Dunchattan 35 Eccles Road, Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); Shireen Saxena, 33 Eccles Road, Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); P Thallon, 33 Eccles Road, Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); R Thallon, 33 Eccles Road, Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); Roland Zielinski, 51 Cammesreinach Crescent, Hunters Quay (letter dated 10 th May 2010); L and S Jones, 12 Eccles Road Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); D and C L Jones, 14 Eccles Road Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); K James and D. Hancock, 43 Eccles Road, Hunters Quay (letter dated 14 th May 2010); S Cunningham, 41 Eccles Road Dunoon PA23 8LB (letter dated 14 th May 2010); D Cunningham, 41 Eccles Road Dunoon PA23 8LB (letter dated 14 th May 2010). The points raised can be summarised as follows: i. This application is the same as was previously refused. Reasons for refusal have not changed since that time as there appears to be no overriding material or circumstantial change to the application that could now alter judgements reached at that time; ii. Sole access is proposed across a Right of Way known as Renfield Brae linking Eccles Road to Marine Parade; iii. Proposal would result in tandem development; iv. Settlement pattern would not support such a development; v. Proposed property would be seriously overlooked by Renfield House in its current guise or proposed development; vi. Red line boundary includes land that would block access onto Marine Parade; vii. Proposed site was on a considerable slope which has apparently been levelled by the applicant, presumably without planning permission. Surface water drainage could be a considerable problem to other property owners and result in slippage; viii. Applicant does not own all of the land outlined in red.

Comment: Refer to Assessment below. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: N (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: N (iii) A design or design/access statement: N (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: N ______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

(i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: N ______

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: N ______

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application

(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.

a) Structure Plan 2002: The following policies are applicable:

STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development STRAT DC 1 - Development Within The Settlements STRAT HO 1 – Housing – Development Control Policy

b) Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009)

The application site is located within the small town and village settlement of Kirn including Hunters Quay where the following policies are applicable:

LP ENV 1 Development Impact on the General Environment; LP ENV 19 Development Setting, Layout and Design ( including Appendix A Sustainable Siting and Design Principles ); LP ENV 14 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas; LP HOU 1 General Housing Development; LP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Systems; LP SERV 2 Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS); LP SERV 3 Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) LP TRAN 4 New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes; LP TRAN 6 Vehicle Parking Provision;

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

a) Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010) b) Planning Advice Note 67 - ‘Housing Quality” c) Planning Advice Note 68 – ‘Design Statements’ d) ‘A Policy Statement for Scotland - Designing Places’; ______

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: N ______(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): N ______(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: N ______(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: N ______(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): N ______(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

Planning permission (ref. 03/01508/DET) for a slightly larger but similarly sited dwellinghouse was refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed on 14 th October 2004. The applicant no longer owns or runs Renfield House and ownership of the application site has been severed from Renfield House. The closure of the Renfield House Care Home has no bearing on an assessment of the site as the department consider that the site is in land use terms still part of the curtilage of Renfield House. Physically, nothing has changed in terms of the site, surroundings or revised proposal to alter the department’s original recommendation. The only major material consideration is that the Cowal Local Plan was replaced in August 2009 by the Argyll and Bute Local Plan which the proposed development must be considered against. The proposed single storey dwelling would effectively be perched within the former front garden area of Renfield House, an imposing Victorian building. The scale, mass and siting of the dwelling bears no semblance of proportion or context to the character of the area but would be positioned in a very prominent and ungainly position by virtue of its scale and position that would be ‘sandwiched’ between the imposing two-and-a-half storey Renfield House and the large two-storey dwelling East Gate Lodge fronting Marine Parade and modern bungalow at 5 Hunters Grove to the degradation of the character of the area. This would result in overdevelopment and ‘settlement cramming’ contrary to the very many objectives of national and development plan policy to which serious conflicts are readily identified. Since the previous proposal was refused, planning permission has been granted for a replacement residential care home at Renfield House. While this permission has not yet been implemented, Renfield House is currently lying empty awaiting its future. This permission was granted without the application site being included but in planning terms, the application site still forms part of the curtilage of Renfield House, despite attempts by the applicant to carry out unauthorised ground engineering works and boundary treatments as preparatory works for a housing plot. There is no guarantee that Renfield House will be demolished and replaced by a new home where it could continue in its current use as a Class 8 care home or potentially converted to flats. Notwithstanding the future of Renfield House, the application site forms an integral part of its curtilage and benevolent setting.

The Reporter previously concluded that, “….it is also necessary to take into account the previous loss of curtilage from Renfield House, the large amount of extension that it has undergone, and the dominance of hard surfaces for car parking and servicing in what would remain if the appeal site were not re-integrated. I find that the lack of grounds commensurate with the imposing size of the existing enlarged building would be markedly out of character and would be fairly classified as ‘settlement cramming’, in this local context”.

The proposed dwellinghouse would be sandwiched between the imposing bulk of Renfield House and perched above properties below at East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove. This ‘settlement cramming’ would result in reduced privacy and amenity for occupants of Renfield House, East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove and a poor level of amenity for the proposed dwellinghouse itself. The Reporter previously concluded that, “….the proposed development would appear tightly and incongruously confined in a very awkward shaped sloping site by the south-western boundary ad retaining wall, with locally uncharacteristic shortage of conveniently shaped, private and reasonably level amenity ground. Despite its modest dimensions, the house would appear from below as an incongruously perched insertion in what is no more than a proportionate gap between East Lodge and Renfield House……..Overlooking from a steep angle and a short distance down towards East Lodge would be likely to be significant, in the absence of some solid protective barrier that would itself appear incongruous and would block views to the firth”.

Thirteen letters of objections have been received from neighbours suggesting that reasons for refusal remain unchanged since the last proposal, access is taken over a Right of Way, tandem development, contrary to the settlement patter, site overlooked by Renfield House, the site is steep having been partially levelled by the applicant without permission and surface water drainage concerns.

The current ‘revised’ application for a slightly smaller dwellinghouse instead of the dwellinghouse previously refused (ref. 03/01508/DET) is considered to be no different in terms of impact on residential amenity and impact on the character and setting of Renfield House in addition to overlooking adjacent properties and being significantly overlooked by existing buildings. In addition, a dwellinghouse on this site would lead to a plot subdivision that would produce a poor standard of amenity as well as impacting in a negative manner on amenity and privacy through overlooking of the rear gardens at East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove due to the juxtaposition of the dwellings below. There are insurmountable objections to the proposed development that is recommended for refusal. Such a development with its particular siting, layout, scale and access would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development and of protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and established settlement pattern. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010); Policies STRAT SI 1 ‘Sustainable Development’, STRAT DC1 ‘Development Within The Settlements’ and STRAT HO 1 ‘Housing– ‘Development Control Policy’ of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002; and Policies LP ENV14 – Development in Conservation Areas and Special Built Environment Areas, LP ENV19 ‘Development Setting, Layout and Design’ (including Appendix A - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles – ‘Design of New Housing in Settlements’), LP HOU 1 ‘General Housing Development’ and LP SERV2 Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009), all of which presume against the nature of the development proposed and does not justify the grant of planning permission. ______(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: N ______(R) Reasons why Planning Permission in Principle should be refused

1. Having regard to the character of the existing settlement pattern and density, which generally comprises large imposing Victorian villas of significant scale and proportion, the proposed single storey dwelling would remove the visual space around Renfield House a Victorian building of presence the grounds upon which it stands are an integral part of the character of the site that has historical links with the development of the wider settlement pattern. The single storey dwelling would be perched within the front garden area of Renfield House and would be dwarfed and out of context with that property and the large imposing new dwelling East Gate Lodge at a lower level below fronting Marine Parade. As such the proposed dwelling, sited in such a prominent position would be ungainly and at odds with the character of the established settlement pattern of the area and would constitute an alien and incongruous feature resulting in the over-development of the site. Accordingly the proposed development would be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010) which advises that;

Infill sites within existing settlements can often make a useful contribution to the supply of housing land. Proposals for infill sites should respect the scale, form and density of the surroundings and enhance the character and amenity of the community. The individual and cumulative effects of infill development should be sustainable in relation to social, economic, transport and other relevant physical infrastructure and should not lead to over development (para 82)

The development would also be contrary to the Planning Advice Note 67 - ‘Housing Quality, Planning Advice Note 68, ‘Design Statements’; Policy STRAT SI 1 ‘Sustainable development’ and Policy STRAT DC1 ‘Development within Settlements’ of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 and Policies LP ENV19 ‘Development Setting, Layout and Design’ (including Appendix A - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles – ‘Design of New Housing in Settlements’) and LP HOU 1 ‘General Housing Development’ of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009), all of which presume against the nature of the development proposed and do not justify the grant of planning permission.

2. Renfield House and its grounds lie on the edge and overlook a compact ‘Special Built Environment Area’ that runs from just beyond Renfield Brae to Clyde Street along the length of Marine Parade identified under Policy LP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009). The grounds upon which Renfield House stands are an integral part of the character of the site. The erection of a new dwelling within these grounds would undermine the objectives of the Alexandra / Marine Parade Special Built Environment Area contrary to Policy LP ENV14 given the detrimental effect upon the wider character, despoliation of its garden ground and amenity space within its curtilage. Renfield Brae is currently overgrown and offers partial screening of the site to villas within the Alexandra / Marine Parade Special Built Environment Area. This screening cannot be guaranteed by the applicant therefore exposing the site and dwellinghouse to the lower tier of dwellings to the detriment of the Special Built Environment Area.

3. The proposed dwellinghouse would provide for a garden/amenity area that is neither adequate nor private given that occupants of Renfield House would overlook it. Having regard to the perched position of the proposed single storey dwelling and to the indicative footprint that is close to the boundary with Renfield House, any private amenity areas would be overlooked seriously diminishing the amenity and privacy that occupants of that property once occupied, could reasonably expect to enjoy. Accordingly, given the lack of proper and adequate provision of private amenity spaces, would result in a poor standard of development contrary to Policies LP ENV 19 ‘Development Setting, Layout and Design’ (including Appendix A - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles – ‘Design of New Housing in Settlements’) and LP HOU 1 ‘General Housing Development’ of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009), all of which presume against the nature of the development proposed and do not justify the grant of planning permission.

4. The applicant has failed to provide any information in respect of surface water drainage proposals (SuDS) for the application site that is slopes steeply towards East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove. The lack of precise surface water drainage arrangements incorporating a SuDS scheme to alleviate potential flooding of the site and adjacent properties and their land is contrary to policy LP SERV 2 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009), which presumes against the nature of the development proposed. ______(S) Reasoned justification for a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan n/a ______

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: N ______

Author of Report: Brian Close Date: 4 June 2010

Reviewing Officer: David Eaglesham Date: 7 June 2010

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 10/00007/PPP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

(i) Settlement Strategy

Within the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009), the application site is located within the small town and village settlement of Kirn including Hunters Quay where, under Policy LP HOU 1 there is a general presumption in favour of housing development unless there is an unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact. Proposals should not overwhelm the townscape character, or the capacity, of the settlement and be consistent with all other policies of the Structure and Local Plan.

The application site formed part of the garden ground and amenity and visual space for Renfield House, an imposing substantial two and a half storey Victorian Villa, which the applicant previously owned and operated as a residential care home (Class 8). The application site overlooks a new two-storey dwellinghouse East Gate Lodge and bungalow at 5 Hunters Grove. Due to topography and settlement pattern in this part of Hunters Quay there is a strong linear tier of residential development along Marine Parade with an upper tier of dwellings along the eastern side of Eccles Road.

The proposed development does not sit comfortably within the immediate settlement pattern where the particular siting and layout do not complement the layout or scale and design of existing established traditional buildings.

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with policies STRAT DC1 and HO 1 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan and Policies LP ENV 19 and LP HOU 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

(i) Development Setting

Within the application site, the ground slopes from west to east. The central part of the site has been levelled by the applicant to create a ‘development’ platform (together with boundary fence, blockwork retaining wall and ground engineering works) in advance of the previous application (ref. 03/01508/DET), which was refused. The eastern part of the site slopes very steeply towards East Gate Lodge and No.5 Hunter’s Grove. The site is bounded by Renfield Brae, a private road, to the southeast, and a newly erected wooden slatted timber fence between the application site and Renfield House.

The application site lies immediately adjacent and overlooks the Alexandra / Marine Parade Special Built Environment Area, which is characterised by two distinctive components. To the south of the site towards Hunters Quay and within the Special Built Environment Area, the area is characterised primarily by large imposing Victorian style dwellinghouses of presence. To the northwest of the site and outwith the designated Special Built Environment Area the character significantly changes to provide for the Hunter’s Grove housing estate and the predominantly single storey detached dwellings of that large modern residential estate.

(ii) Development Layout

It is proposed to erect a single storey dwellinghouse and improve an existing vehicular access. Indicative details submitted depict a dwellinghouse that would have a footprint of approximately 120m 2 (16 metres in length and a maximum depth of 9.5 metres) and a hipped roof with hipped roof rear extension. The side (west) elevation of the dwellinghouse would be situated 2 metres from the boundary wall that the applicant erected between the application site and Renfield House which is located at a distance of 11 metres. The building itself is orientated to maximise its elevated position with views over the .

No materials or elevations have been provided at this stage. A new access into the site would be formed from Renfield Brae, a private road between Eccles Road and Marine Parade (although the lower section of this road has been blocked for many years). Car parking for two vehicles and a turning area is proposed.

It is proposed to connect to the public water supply and public wastewater system. It is also proposed to clear trees from the site but this is not sufficiently shown on the submitted plan.

(i) Assessment The proposal must be assessed against the provisions of Policy LP ENV 19 - Development Setting, Layout and Design of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009) where a high standard of appropriate design is expected in accordance with the Council’s design principles. Development shall be sited and positioned to pay regard to the context within which it is located. Development layout and density shall effectively integrate with its suburban setting of the development. This is further explored in Appendix A Sustainable Siting and Design Principles where in terms of ‘Design of New Housing in Settlements’, para 4.1 ‘the location of houses within a settlement is the most critical factor. New development must be compatible with, and consolidate, the existing settlement…….the relationship with neighbouring properties will be paramount, as issues such as overlooking and loss of privacy may arise’ .

Para 4.2 As a general principle all new proposals should be designed to take the following into account:

• Location: new housing must reflect or recreate the traditional settlement pattern or built form and be sympathetic to the setting of landmarks, historical features or views of the local landscape.

It is proposed to erect a dwellinghouse in the former front garden area of Renfield House, a substantial two-and-a-half storey stone villa, last in use a residential care home (Class 8). The grounds of Renfield House constitute an important and integral part of the character of the site. The large physical mass of building sits comfortably with the substantial grounds; there is an important visual relationship between the building and the grounds with the two components interlinked. While Renfield House is not a listed building, it is an imposing Victorian building on its elevated and prominent site. In an assessment of this proposal, it is considered that the grounds and the spaces around the building are an integral part of that character, providing an appropriate and proportionate setting that reflects the building’s mass and features. The new dwelling would remove and disrupt that sense of identity and character of that property.

• Layout: must reflect local character/patterns and be compatible with neighbouring uses. Ideally the house should have a southerly aspect to maximise energy efficiency. • Open Space/Density: all development should have some private open space (ideally a minimum of 100 sq m); semidetached/detached houses (and any extensions) should only occupy a maximum of 33% of their site. • Design: The scale, shape and proportion of the development should respect or complement the adjacent buildings and the plot density and size. Colour, materials and detailing are crucial elements to pick up from surrounding properties to integrate a development within its context. • Access: should be designed to maximise vehicular and pedestrian safety and not compromise the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The upper part of the site has been levelled (by the applicant without planning permission) to provide a development platform on which the dwellinghouse, parking and turning area will be sited. A small triangular rear garden area is shown tapering from 2 to 8 metres. The site is currently overgrown in parts which provides sufficient natural screening to East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove below. Renfield Brae which is a private road is also overgrown but blocked at its eastern end onto Marine Parade. The overgrown nature of Renfield Brae screens the application site from villas along Marine Parade within a Special Built Environment Area. Removal of this screening would open up the application site to wider views. While indicative planting is shown, there is no guarantee that it could safeguard privacy levels of dwellinghouses within the lower tier. The site also slopes very steeply beyond the artificial platform and this eastern part of the site could not be regarded as meaningful amenity space. The need to screen the site from surrounding buildings merely emphasises that proposed development does not integrate well within the surrounding settlement pattern or adjacent buildings. Despite a separate access to the site, the proposed dwellinghouse will essentially be relegated to a further tier of development that could be regarded as ‘backland’ in nature.

Given the prominence of the site due to its elevated position when viewed from Marine Parade the single storey dwelling would provide no degree of visual coordination or integration between the Renfield House and the new two-storey dwellinghouse East Gate Lodge below fronting Marine Parade. Rather the single storey dwelling proposed would be disproportionate in terms of mass, scale and design such that it would be perched ungainly and out of character and place within the established settlement thereof. Resultantly the proposed dwelling would have more of an affinity with the modern housing estate at Hunters Grove but this is quite a separate and distinct area of character and not part of the application site and its immediate character. Consequently such a new dwelling would be an alien incongruous feature to the character of the area and undermine national and development plan policy objectives that serve remind and reinforce that any new development should not despoil and degrade the character of residential areas by the effects of infill development that is inappropriate for its context and setting. The siting of a bungalow in front of Renfield House would undermine those basic tenets and would clash visually with Renfield House since it does not respect the character of the existing settlement pattern nor the scale, siting, type and massing of existing adjacent buildings. It is also considered that the siting of the proposed dwelling appears cramped in addition to being at odds with Renfield House. On this particular site, and given the lack of suitable curtilage surrounding the proposed dwelling, such a development would result in over- development of the site and inappropriate plot subdivision and ‘settlement cramming’.

Finally, very limited private area would be provided with the new dwelling and the use of the curtilage in that area in front of the proposed dwelling would lead to looking down upon the rear garden areas of East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove. This is not a type of proposal the department should actively promote or endorse since effectively this would result in looking down on to and undermining such a private amenity area.

• Services: connection to electricity, telephone and wastewater i.e. drainage schemes will be a factor – particularly if there is a limited capacity.

Refer to section (iv) and (v) below.

Having due regard to the above, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with Policy STRAT SI 1 STRAT DC 1 and STRAT HO 1 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002 and Policies LP ENV 19, HOU 1 and Appendix A of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009).

D. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters

It is proposed to refurbish the existing access lane with a stone chip finish. Roads offer no objections subject to conditions regarding visibility splays, width and gradient of access, car parking and turning and advisory notes regarding a Road Opening Permit. Roads have also confirmed that Renfield Brae and the area within the red line boundary is classified as a private road. Revised plans have been submitted indicating the applicant’s ownership of Renfield Brae which is restricted to the central portion.

Having due regard to the above the proposal would, with safeguarding conditions, be considered consistent with Policies LP TRAN 4 and TRAN 6 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan.

E. Infrastructure – Water Supply and Foul Drainage

It is proposed to connect to both the public water and waste water systems. Scottish Water have no objections in principle but comment that there may be potential wastewater capacity issues that can only be resolved at a detailed stage.

On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered consistent with the provisions of Policies SERV1 and SERV2 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009).

F. Surface Water Drainage

An indicative rainwater soakaway is shown but no further details have been provided. The location of the site below Renfield House and perched above East Gate Lodge and 5 Hunters Grove has the potential to increase surface war run-off to the detriment of downhill properties.

On the basis of a lack of information on proposed surface water drainage arrangements, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with Policies SERV 2 and SERV 3 of the Argyll and Bute Local Plan (August 2009).