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 : 09/00689/COU Planning Hierarchy : Local Applicant : Director of Community Services Proposal : Change of use of land to form extension to school playground and car park and formation of access Site Address : Land to rear of Gigha Primary School, Ardminish, Isle of Gigha DECISION ROUTE Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of use of land to form extension to school playground; • Change of use of land to form school car park; • Formation of a new vehicular access. (ii) Other specified operations • Erection of fencing (B) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons attached. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Area Roads (16.06.2009) - No objection subject to conditions. Archaeologist (11.06.2009) - No objection. Historic Scotland (08.06.2009) - No objection. Environmental Services (09.06.2009) - No objection. (D) HISTORY: 07/00595/DET - Erection of rear extension to school (as amended by plan received 15.06.07), Gigha Primary School, Ardminish - Application Approved 25.06.07. 08/01353/COU- Change of use of land to form extension to school playground and car park and formation of access, Gigha Primary School, Ardminish - Application withdrawn 02.03.09. (E) PUBLICITY: Article 9 Vacant Land, which expired on the 19th June 2009. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Henri Mcaulay, 2 Raon Mor, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, PA41 7AB. Dr Arthur J A Wightman and Mrs Janet Wightman, Ceol Mara, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, PA41 7AD/19 Greenhill Gardens, Edinburgh, EH10 4BL. Frederick and Valerie Gillies, Heather Lea, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, PA41 7AA (ii) Summary of issues raised by objectors (2 No.): • Neighbours would suffer extensive loss of amenity and privacy, since the development area comes right up to their garden fence. Comment: issues of amenity and privacy are considered at Appendix A to this report. • The projected Gigha Primary School roll shows a decline to 9 pupils by 2014, based on figures collated last August. Since then, nothing has changed, with no new children coming to the island. In light of this the existing playground, which has recently been completely resurfaced, is adequate to meet the needs of the pupils and the cost effectiveness of extending it is questioned. The objector also notes that new galvanised railings and gates have been installed within the last few months. Comment: The cost effectiveness of the proposals is a matter for the Education Authority. The proposals are appropriately founded on the provision of appropriate facilities for the school at its current capacity which currently has no grassed play space for older pupils. • There is a broader need for a car park in the vicinity, which could easily be used by the two cars which are involved in the daily running of the school. There is an ideal flat field directly north of the shop, part of which could be utilised at low cost to create a small car park. It is a 30-second walk from there to the school gates. School taxis presently drop a number if children off directly on to the narrow pavement at the school gates, which is 100 per cent safe. As for the pedestrian pupils, we agree that there is a case for safer access to the school, which would cut out the need for children to use the blind T-junction approach at the shop. An unobtrusive footpath (a low cost project) could easily be laid through the land earmarked and give completely safe access to the rear of the school. Comment: No alternative parking options are before the Planning Authority for consideration at this time. The current proposal must be considered on its merits. The operational desirability of providing parking immediately adjacent to the existing school site is accepted. • We object to an access road being built through land designated ‘countryside around settlement’ (CAS). We refer to STRAT DC 2 of the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan 2002, and 3.14 and P/DCZ2 of Argyll and Bute Post Inquiry Modifications November 2008 – Written Statement. Examples of development allowed in the structure plan are given in STRAT DC 2 A). STRAT DC 2 C) then states “developments are also subject to consistency with other policies of the structure plan and in the local plan”. The Local Plan Post Inquiry Modifications Nov 2008 (LPPIM) is specific and states unambiguously “only small scale, infill and rounding off and redevelopment proposals will be supported where appropriate”. We believe none of these development types would embrace this access road development. Infill is defined in 10.1 of the local plan and in the LPPIM – statement on Decision of Reporters Findings, Nov. 2008, and the proposal does not seem to constitute rounding off or redevelopment since it concerns untouched, open grazing land. This access road would not constitute permissible development on this CAS. Comment: The issue of compliance with Policy STRAT DC 2 is considered at Appendix A of this report. • We note that in the planning report on the withdrawn application (ref 08/01353/COU, para A) of STRAT DC 2 was used to support this application, while para C) received no mention. We are surprised that the policy was cherry picked, and believe that for impartiality with this council application the policy requires to be considered as a whole. Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report. • Local Plan policy COM 1 was also used to support the argument. This however requires compliance with STRAT DC 2, and so in turn through clause C) with the local plan, and thereby leads to a non-qualifying form of development as argued above. STRAT DC 2 A) states “in special cases, a locational need or exceptional circumstance may justify a development”. In the earlier report, this was used as an argument for building the access road through CAS, while at the same time STRAT DC 2 C), requiring consistency with the local plan, was again disregarded. This “special case” provision is excluded from the clearly defined conditions of the local plan in which “only small scale, infill and rounding off and redevelopment proposals will be supported where appropriate”. Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report. • There are no “special case” provisions applicable in this case. The “special case” argument for development on CAS is to some extent immaterial, since there is alternative access to the proposed car park through land lying entirely within the settlement zone, from the main road between Ferry House and Ferry Cottages. We appreciate this is not land currently offered – we just state that there is potential access within the settlement zone itself. In conclusion the structure plan requires consistency with the local plan with respect to CAS, and the local plan within its terms does not appear to allow for this development. Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report. • We ask that our objection is upheld. (We also mention that we do not consider the statements in appendix B – A (C) para.2 of the previous report relevant. STRAT DC 2 does not say built development or building development, it just says development. The policy seems to have been misquoted). Comment: Policy issues relevant to the consideration of this application are considered in full at Appendix A of this report. • We object strongly to the proposed car park and access road on the grounds of significant loss of amenity in terms of privacy, noise and visual impact. While we are not making a planning objection to the playground itself, we point out that loss of amenity from noise would be compounded by this. All our public rooms and bedrooms face only to the south and/or east, directly on to the proposed development, and our conservatory faces to these two sides also, and to the west. Great privacy and peace are major amenities of our home, and would be significantly lost by the proposed car park and access road. Comment: Issues of privacy, noise and visual impact are considered at Appendix A to this report. • We mention (as previously) that we have a long sewage pipe and a septic tank within the proposed site. We question whether these were laid to cater for overlying traffic. Comment : These are matters of civil law and there is no suggestion or reason to believe that they would present an insurmountable obstacle to development. They have been drawn to the attention of Community Services who have advised that drainage would be protected to allow for constructing the proposed hardstanding. • We refer to the 1:1250 and 1:500 scale drawings 01 and L (00)002. We agree that the road and boundary wall are straight, and that the verge width between our wall at the south west corner of our home and the roadside is as shown, measuring one metre. However, both drawings suggest that the verge widens to 1.5 metres to encroach a little on the road at the shown access site and at the line of the fence forming the south boundary of the field in front of us. This is not the case – the road edge and boundary wall are both parallel and show a constant verge width varying by only 5-10cm on either side of 1 metre in this section.