Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure 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 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 17/02438/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Graham MacQueen Proposal: Erection of Recreational Hut (Retrospective) Site Address: Land Approximately 830 Metres Northeast of Atlantic Bridge, Clachan Seil ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of Recreational Hut Engineering Works consisting of the formation of areas of hardstanding and access paths Erection of timber ‘garden shed’ (ii) Other Operations Installation of a private water supply to an external standpipe (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: No history relevant to this particular site. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Development Policy Unit Memo dated 03/11/17 advising that the LDP includes specific provisions setting out a spatial strategy relating to tourism accommodation and recreational facilities and, in the absence of any specific policy relating to huts, it is these which provide an appropriate planning policy framework for assessment at huts at this time. They further advise that the Council is at the Main Issues Report stage of the next LDP which proposes a new approach to countryside development together with a more positive, simple policy framework for tourism development to come forward flexibly in the countryside whilst safeguarding the valued environmental resources of our area. The Main Issues Report is not considered to be a strong material consideration given that it is at an early stage of consultation and as such does not represent the “settled view” of the Council. Biodiversity Officer Letter dated 19/10/17 No objection subject to conditions but advising that there are concerns that the large size of the application site appears disproportionate to the small size of the proposed hut and recommends that this is reviewed in line with the area that the hut currently occupies in order to protect the sensitive nature of the site. The response recommends that no further building incursion or any formalised access is allowed into the site to maintain its integrity and, as there is no sea to shore access, the applicant maintains a watching brief for Otter activity and follows a protocol to avoid disturbing this European Protected Species if sighted. Kilmelford Community Council Letter dated 14/10/17 advising that they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed on the grant of planning permission restricting use of the development to Mr MacQueen and his family and restricting any further development on the site. Building Standards E-mail dated 7th November confirming that there would be an exemption from requirement for a building warrant provided that: i) the building floor area (measured internally) does not exceed 30sqm, ii) that any gallery within it does not exceed 8sqm, and iii) the building is only used for shelter or sleeping in connection with recreation (i.e. a “bothy”). It is however also noted that the details accompanying the application only provide external measurement of the building (6.12m x 5.12m) which would suggest that the exemption from warrant would therefore appear to be borderline dependent on the thickness of the walls and could only be confirmed following provision of accurate internal dimensions. It is also noted that any proposal to install wastewater drainage (sanitary facilities) would require a warrant. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 procedures, closing date 19/10/17. ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: 133 Representations have been received regarding the proposed development comprising 17 objections and 116 expressions of support. OBJECTION Ian Binnie, Balvicar, Seil (01/10/17) Dr Uta Binnie, Balvicar, Seil (01/10/17) Dr Christine Moinard, 1 Cnoc A' Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (02/10/17) Stevie Jarron (by e-mail 02/10/17) Mr Nick Bowles, 2 Cnoc Beag, Balvicar, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TH (04/10/17) Mr Adam Jarron, Tigh-Air-Oisean, Cnoc A' Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (02/10/17) Mr Bill McDicken, Tigh Na Craig, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TJ (04/10/17) Gerald Foster, Achnaclach Cottage, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (06/10/17) Julian Taylor (by e-mail) 10/10/17 Lorraine Reynolds (by e-mail 12/10/17) HMM Blakeney, Reay Cottage, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (16/10/17) Mr Brian Marden (by e-mail 17/10/17) Carol Collis (by e-mail 17/10/17) Rose Wand (by e-mail 18/10/17) Marion MacLean (by e-mail 13/10/17) David Pender (by e-mail 13/10/17) Martin Haddlington, An Fhuaran, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (19/10/17) Summary of issues raised Anger at what is alleged to be the blatant and cynical corruption of the planning process that the build represents. It is further alleged that the applicant has knowingly from the start played the planning process by clearing and building on the site without permission to be able to feign ignorance of the need for planning consent and apply retrospectively and pay the token fine. There need to be questions asked of what advice Digital Land Surveys Ltd gave their client and whether they colluded in avoiding planning permission or were ignored when it was pointed out. It would appear that considerable structural, architectural and engineering input were provided in the construction of the building and it is hard to believe that no one approached Planning during this build period for any sort of consultation or advice which would suggest that the owner had always intended to go down the route of retrospective planning permission. The building has been built almost to the exact specifications of a recreational hut set out in legislation which suggests they are aware of the regulations surrounding recreational huts and cannot feign innocence that they did not realise they should have planning permission and are attempting to get retrospective permission, despite knowing they needed it to begin with, because they plan to get around the potential outcry over the environmental impact. Comment: The comments are noted. Ignorance is not a defence, especially when the plans show a date of August 2016. Comment: The comment is noted. The Council Planning Team were informed repeatedly of the build, from the first clearing of the site back in May throughout its build process over the summer, but somehow failed to intervene in time to prevent what we have now; to all intents and purposes a completed house. Questions need to be answered as to how much further the build continued after the applicant was told to stop building, the advice that was given to them at the time and any contact the applicant had with Planning Officers (past and present) at the Council in the year running up to the present time on this build. The choices here are between incompetence and collusion. Comment: The Planning Service opened an appropriate investigation when first advised of the unauthorised development and which resulted in the submission of the current planning application. The planning enforcement case remains open until such time as the application is determined and, if the application is refused, will need to consider the expediency of any formal planning enforcement action that might be taken. The applicant has had no contact with Planning Officers regarding this site, or development, in the preceding year. Steven Holston of SNH advised that the site hadn’t been visited by the Council Officer as deemed too far away. Comment: A visit to the site has been undertaken by staff from the Planning Service. The build is a total disregard and humiliation of the Planning Process. If you pass this house, what is there to stop anyone else doing exactly the same? What is the point of planning? Comment: The proposal is for a recreational hut, not a dwellinghouse and is fully considered against the terms of the Local Development Plan (LDP) in Appendix A. The structure has not had the benefit of normal planning considerations about its impact on the surrounding area and the environment and the retrospective application should be refused until open and transparent impact assessments have been completed and I hope Argyll and Bute Council responds strongly to this breach of planning. By not refusing this application, precedent would be set for other developers to build on remote land out of public sight under similar terms. Comment: The application is fully considered against the relevant policies and guidance of the LDP in Appendix A of this report. The proposal is considered contrary to the LDP and is being recommended for refusal for the