ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL MINUTE of MEETING OF AREA COMMITTEE FOR MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY SITE INSPECTION, LAND EAST OF GLEANN A GAOIDH, BY PORTNAHAVEN, ISLE OF ISLAY held on MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2006 Present: Councillor Alastair McKinlay (Chair) Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John Findlay Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Bruce Robertson Attending: Deirdre Forsyth, Area Corporate Services Manager Richard Kerr, Senior Development Control Officer Peter Bain, Development Control Officer The Mr Neil Wood Applicant Objectors Mr Douglas Bouttell (Spokesperson) Mr Mitchell Mrs Mitchell 1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Councillor Kelly. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 05/02063/OUT W.C. and M.I. Wood Outline Erection of single detached dwellinghouse and septic tank Land East of Gleann A Gaoidh, by Portnahaven, Isle of Islay The Chairman commenced by introducing those present and explaining the procedure. Richard Kerr on behalf of the Head of Planning explained the reasons for the recommendations of approval as per the reports. F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc APPLICANT Mr Wood reiterated what had been stated in the report by the Head of Planning and explained to the Committee that he had had discussions with the Planning Department prior to applying for planning permission in order to locate a suitable site. He also stated that he has a strip of land which would act as a natural barrier and he would be cutting back trees at the roadside in order to increase visibility at the access point. OBJECTORS Mr Bouttell introduced himself to the Committee and distributed a handout, which outlined the main point in support of the objections (Appendix 1). He then went on to discuss each point in detail, a copy of which is attached to this minute (Appendix 2). COUNCILLORS Councillor Hay asked for clarification of what outline planning permission allowed the applicant to do and Richard Kerr explained that it was the first of a 2 part process, an approval in principal, but that a further application for the reserved matters must be then submitted. Outline planning permission is valid for 3 years. Richard then explained that Scottish Water have not objected to the application but they cannot guarantee connection to the water supply until an application is made for this as it is operated on a first come, first served basis. Councillor Currie then asked if the skyline would be greatly affected if this planning permission was granted and Richard Kerr explained that as the house would be set in low lying land, the impact on the skyline would be minimal. Councillor Colville asked about the visibility at the entrance to the site and Richard Kerr stated that if the applicant cut away the trees at the side of the road, the visibility would be improved substantially and there should therefore be no problem. SUMMING UP The applicant reinforced what he had said earlier in the meeting and explained that his application meets the criteria as far as the Planning Department are concerned and stated that they had never had any problems with the water supply in the last 20 years. Richard Kerr then explained that it is a difficult stretch of land to find plots, and this particular plot will be the least intrusive for the countryside. Mr Boutell emphasisied his points as made earlier, urged the Committee to make the right decision and thanked them for going to Islay in order to see the site and meet the objectors. Richard Kerr the stated that the report should be amended at condition 4, part 6 to read: “Any porches shall have traditional “peaked” roofs;” with any reference to dormers taken out. F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc DECISION Councillor McKinlay moved that the planning application be granted subject to the conditions and reasons stated in the report by the Head of Planning, as amended by the deletion of any reference to dormers in condition 4. Councillor Findlay seconded the motion. There were no amendments, so the motion was carried unanimously. F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc APPENDIX 1 F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc APPENDIX 2 An Gleann Site Visit - 20.2.2006 1. My name is Douglas Kennedy Bouttell and I have been asked to be spokesperson on behalf of all the objectors with regard to this application for Outline Planning permission. There is no relationship, collusive or otherwise between me and any of the objectors, however I do know four of them, to speak to, and I’m on the Christmas card list of one of them. For the avoidance of any doubt I would like to make it clear that there is nothing personal between the objectors and the applicant. I would also ask that the Committee members uphold the democratic process and deliberate all aspects of this application under the strict governance of Argyll and Bute Council’s code of conduct for members of council and in particular those parts of the code titled Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Propriety and Objectivity. 2 If we take the Planning Application Report and start at the paragraph titled (A) Determining issues and material considerations we see that no mention is made, at this point, regarding the fact that the proposed site is in a Rural Opportunity Area. I would refer you to the Minutes of Meeting of Mid Argyll Kintyre & Islay Area Committee held on 2.11.05 and in particular the Development Services Planning Application Report prepared by Peter Bain. He says and I quote “However, following public consultation, representations have been lodged to the disposition of the ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ throughout all of Argyll and Bute. Consequently, ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ cannot be considered as a material planning consideration in the determinations of applications at the present time”. The Planning application in this case was withdrawn. This meeting was attended by Councillors Colville, Findlay, Kelly, McMillan, Currie, Hay, and McAlpine. Reference is made to Rural Opportunity Areas on page 35 of the Planning Report in answer to one of the objections, however, our interpretation of this statement is merely that the goalposts have been changed from the Report written for the November meeting and the report written for this one. Reference was also made to Planning Advice Note number 72 inferring that the application was consistent with the advice. One of the pieces of advice in this Planning Advice Note, not mentioned in this particular Planning report, is that “Attention should be paid to established building lines and orientation of any buildings in the area. Overlooking should be avoided.” (B)Conditions and reasons relative to application 05/02063/OUT Item 4(i) states that the dwelling shall be single storey in height, however item 4(vi) States that dormers (which are encouraged in the design) shall have traditional peaked roof. We therefore have a house which is single storey but is encouraged to have two floors. I would refer you back to Planning advice note No 72 “Attention should be paid to established building lines and orientation of any buildings in the area. Overlooking should be avoided.” Overlooking would be further exacerbated by the addition of another floor. F:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000243\M00002257\AI00027253\IslaySiteInspection20Feb060.doc Items 7 & 8 are indicative of an effort to agree an element of road safety. Without seeing the exact design of the bellmouth or visibility splays I would estimate or hazard a guess to at least 300m² of the site being cleared in order to create the site access. With regard to areas I would like to clarify some matters of fact. The site is stated to be 0.65acres in area, however, as a Surveyor of many years this seemed somewhat conservative especially seeing the site as defined in the Application's 1: 2500 scale Location Plan. 0.65 acres equates to 2632m². Using the Ordnance Survey GGP system I calculate the site area to be approximately 4500m² i.e 1.11 acres or almost twice that stated in the Planning Report. Is this another error? A. Appendix Relative to Application 05/02063/OUT The Policy overview looks fairly impressive quoting Structure Plans and Local Plans however the report seems to be fairly selective in it's content. There was no reference, for example, to page 10 of the Planning Advice note ‘Housing in the Countryside’. This advice note clearly states on this page, and I quote “But it is important to ensure that any new development does not overload the capacity of current services and infrastructure". This omission begs the question - Why does the Planning Report fail to mention this? The Scottish Executives publication ‘Rural Solutions are required for Rural locations’ even offers advice on the Role of Councillors. It states :- “Development in the countryside can be sensitive politically. It is very important that there is a solid core of planning policy and guidance, which is accepted, understood and applied consistently. If there is to be more development in the countryside it has to be well planned and then implemented properly. The process has to be seen to be fair and impartial and councillors must demonstrate a commitment to policy”. B. Other Material Considerations (ii) The Consultations with the public utilities are fairly well covered elsewhere in the Planning report, however, Scottish Water comments are not known in detail to the objectors. As this subject is dealt under (iii) Publicity then I will speak about the water supply at that point. I would also propose to clarify the sequence of events regarding neighbour notification in a similar fashion.