01701 Report of Handling Residential Development St
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Argyll and Bute Council Development and 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) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No : 09/01701/PP Planning Hierarchy : Local Applicant : George Hanson (Building Contractors) Ltd Proposal : Demolition of Existing Single Storey Building and Erection of Flatted Residential Development of Six Units with a Car Parking Court Site Address : St Brendan's Church, Mountstuart Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE (i) Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of two-and-half storey building comprising six flats; • Improvement of existing vehicular access onto Mountstuart Road; • Formation of twelve parking spaces (ii) Other specified operations § Connection to public sewer and public water main; § Demolition of existing building; ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that, subject to the undertaking of a discretionary hearing, planning permission be granted subject to a section 75 agreement and the conditions, reasons and informative notes at the end of this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: It is understood that St Brendan's was built in 1889 as a chapel of ease for the High Kirk in Rothesay and was disjoined from the High Kirk to become a parish church in its own right in 1902. In 1957, it was linked with Ascog Church. The main church was damaged by fire in 1973 and a new modern building was erected beside the surviving tower of the old one. The new building closed as a place of regular Sunday worship at the end of 1999 but was used more recently as a church centre. Conservation Area Consent (ref: 09/01700/CONAC) was granted on 11 th March 2010 for the demolition of the existing single storey building on the site. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: West of Scotland Archaeology Service (letter dated 14 th January 2010) No known archaeological issue raised by the proposal. Environmental Health Officer (memo dated 20 th January 2010) No objections subject to conditions regarding hours of construction operation and dust suppression. Scottish Water (letter dated 28 th January 2010) No objections. Area Roads Manager (response dated 5 th May 2010) The existing access is within a 30 mph speed limit. Visibility sight lines along the public road are achievable. No objection subject to conditions ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: Article 9 neighbour notification procedure (closing date 19th January 2010) and Conservation Area Advert (closing date 5th February 2010). ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Representations have been received from a total of twenty eight people as follows: George Docherty, 32 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letters dated 10 th January 2010 and 15 th January 2010) Iain and Alison Morton, 33 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 17 th January 2010) W and I Robertson, Upper St Brendan’s, 16 Crichton Road, Rothesay (letter dated 22 nd January 2010 and 19 th February 2010) Charles M Soane, 15 Crichton Road, Rothesay (letters dated 28 th January 2010 and 19 th February 2010) R and J McKellar, 16 Crichton Road, Rothesay (letter dated 4 th February 2010) Janette Henderson, 44 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 5 th February 2010) J and M Duncan, Hathor, Crichton Road, Rothesay (letter dated 5 th February 2010) K and I Colville, Lorne Lodge, 54 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 6 th February 2010) H and I Thomson, Stella Matutama, Ascog (letter dated 6 th February 2010) H Lymburn, 51 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 8 th February 2010) Lorna Crawford, Albert Lodge, 51 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 10 th February 2010) B and M Davidson, 13 Crichton Road, Rothesay (letter dated 15 th February 2010) R and A Smith, 5 Bogany Road, Rothesay (letter dated 12 th April 2010) Mrs F Lee, 29 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 12 th April 2010) Mrs J Peebles, 28 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 12 th April 2010) G Robertson, 63 Umachan, Roseland Brae, Erskine (letter dated 14th April 2010) G and M Scott, 26 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay (letter dated 15 th April 2010) W and L Bruce, 1 Battery Place, Rothesay (letter dated 20 th April 2010) A summary of the points raised is as follows: 1) The visual impact of the proposed building is wholly out of keeping with its prominent setting on the sea front of the outstanding Victorian Conservation Area of Rothesay. The prominent use of glass is inconsistent with the styles of adjoining properties and lack of any attempt to blend in with the style of adjacent Listed Buildings significantly detracts from the exceptional visual appearance of the adjoining Elysium Terrace and Royal Terrace. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 2) The height of the building is inconsistent with adjoining properties and provides three storey accommodation in an area of predominantly two storey construction. This inconsistency and excessive height draws attention to the proposed property thereby further detracting from the Conservation Area. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 3) Whilst the existing Church Tower is to remain, it does not appear to be in the best of repair and there does not seem to be any mention in the plans that it is to be made structurally sound. Thereafter, there must be a clear stipulation placed on the current and future owners of the site that the tower must be subject to regular maintenance to protect a local landmark and ensure that it does not become a threat to the proposed flats and adjoining properties. It is questioned whether a structural survey of the tower has been carried out to ensure that it will be secure as a freestanding building and will not provide a major obstacle to the future sale of the proposed housing or adjacent building. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 4) Drainage and other services are not shown on the plans. It is, therefore, unclear as to whether there will be any adverse impact on adjoining properties. Comment: The provision of services should be taken up with the relevant organisations. In terms of foul drainage and water supply, Scottish Water has raised no objection to the proposal. 5) The proposed number of parking spaces at the front of the building will also have an adverse visual impact. The density of parking will draw the eye to the property and again highlight it against the Victorian backdrop which must be preserved. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 6) The density of accommodation appears excessive for both the site and the general location. The proposed number of residents for this development is likely to create noise and potential disturbance in a quiet residential area. Even twelve cars leaving the same site around the same time will create a noise impact and potentially disrupt the increasing traffic using Bogany Road as an access to Crichton Road and the further developments on Canada Hill. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 7) The building would be too close to the property immediately to the rear and would have an adverse effect upon the amenity of this property. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 8) The proposed boundary fence is virtually touching the boundary fence between the proposed development and 32 Mountstuart Road. The location is exactly adjacent to an area that is used regularly for summer barbeques. It is imagined that the smell during the summer would be significant and very noticeable due to its close proximity. The bin area should be relocated to the rear of the property. Comment: The agent has indicated, in a letter dated 10 th February 2010, that “the refuse storage area can be relocated provided the maximum carry distance stipulated by the refuse collection service is not exceeded”. On this basis, it would be possible, if permission is ultimately granted, to attach a condition requesting the position of the relocated refuse storage area to be agreed. 9) The side lounge windows of the proposed flats would overlook the garden of 32 Mountstuart Road. Comment: This issue will be addressed in the Assessment section in Annex A. 10) It is claimed that a ‘right of way’ footpath exists from the side of 16 Crichton Road down to Mountstuart Road through the grounds of the former St Brendan’s Church. Assurance is sought that this will be preserved. Comment: It is understood that a private right of way is claimed. The owner disputes that there is such a right of way but this is essentially a civil matter. 11) The proposed property adjoins Elysium Terrace and Royal Terrace which