Committees
Minutes of the Site Hearing of the Lochaber Area Planning & Building Control Committee held at Plot 5, Station Road, Spean Bridge on Monday 27 August 2001 at 09.30am.
Present:
Mr A R McFarlane Slack, Chairman
Mr George M Bruce
Mr William MacLachlan
Mr Brian J Murphy
Mr Neil Clark
In Attendance:
Mr K Johnston, Area Planning & Building Control Manager
Mr JC Tolmie, Area Roads & Transport Manager
Mr KD Falconer, Area Solicitor/Administrator
Mrs E MacLellan, Administrator, Corporate Services
Also Present
Mr I Smith, Caledonian Developments
Mr D Mathieson, Caledonian Developments
Mr R Bruce, Messrs Bruce Neil Mee – Applicants Agents
Mr GJC Reid - Objector
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Mrs Olwyn J Macdonald and Dr Michael EM Foxley.
2. LO/2001/071 – Erection of 6 Semi-Detached Houses at Plot 5, Station Road, Spean Bridge for Caledonian Developments
There was circulated updated report (no. PL/6A) dated 12 July 2001 by the Area Planning & Building Control Manager on an innovative proposal to develop three blocks of 3-bedroom semi-detached houses on the western edge of Spean Bridge village within a developing housing area. The Committee noted that although the site was within an area allocated for Tourism Development (self-catering), this was an outcome of an earlier planning permission thereafter incorporated into the Local Plan.
The Convener introduced everyone present and detailed the procedures for dealing with site hearings.
The Committee noted the Area Planning Manager’s recommendation that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-
1) that the houses shall be roofed in dark blue-grey natural slate;
2) that the proposed development shall be served by a road to adoptive
standards and no development shall commence until Road Construction
Consent has been granted by the Highland Council; in this regard the
adoptive road must connect the site to the nearest adjacent adoptive road
namely Station Road, Spean Bridge. It will be necessary to submit a Bond
to guarantee the cost of the road works and, on completion, the road
must be offered to the Highland Council for adoption;
3) that no trees or existing greenery within the curtilage of the site shall be
lopped, topped felled or otherwise damaged save with the prior written
approval of the Planning Authority; no development shall commence until a
detailed landscaping and planting for the environs of the site has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority; any plant
failures within the first five years shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
Planning Authority; no development shall commence until details of the
arrangements for ongoing maintenance and aftercare of any communal
areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
Authority; the landscaping type and pattern shall have regard to the
requirements of condition (8) below;
4) that no development shall commence until an improved road layout,
parking arrangement and provision of a turning head has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority;
5) that no development shall commence until details of an adequate security
fence to be erected along the boundary with the adjacent railway line
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority;
such fence must be set in place prior to the commencement of building
operations;
6) that no development shall commence until a schedule of external finishes
for the proposed development has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Planning Authority;
AND on the advice of the Director of Roads, Scottish Executive:-
7) that there shall be no means of direct access to the trunk road either
pedestrian or vehicular;
8) that an unclimable barrier or fence of a type approved by the Planning
Authority, after consultation with the Roads Authority, shall be provided
and maintained by the developer or subsequent owner of the land along a
line at least 1 metre behind the existing ditch or edge of earthworks
outline;
9) that there be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system;
10) that details of the lighting within the site shall be submitted for the
approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with the Roads
Authority.
Reasons for Conditions:
1-6) in the interests of amenity, road safety and public safety;
7) to minimise interference with the safety and free flow of the traffic on the
trunk road;
8) to minimise the risk of pedestrians and animals gaining uncontrolled access
to the trunk road with the consequential risk of accidents;
9) to ensure that the efficiency of the existing drainage network is not
affected and that the standard of construction is commensurate with that
required within the road boundary;
10) to ensure that there will be no distraction or dazzle to drivers on the
trunk road and that the safety of the traffic on the trunk road will not be
diminished.
AND the issue of planning permission be withheld until the applicants
confirm that they have control of and can achieve the requirements set
out in condition (2) above.
The Area Planning Manager then gave a full planning appraisal of the application, following which the meeting heard from the Area Roads & Transport Manager, who stressed that it was imperative that all parties understood that in order to develop the six houses, the road connecting Station Road to the development would have to be brought up to adoptive standard, and a Bond submitted to guarantee the cost of the road works, as recommended in the Area Planning Manager’s Condition No. 2.
The Meeting then heard from the applicant’s agent who confirmed his client would bring the road up to adoptable standard and that there would be no difficulty in lodging the appropriate bond.
The applicant’s agent then produced an updated plan which showed the layout of the houses and the proposed road with accesses, parking and a turning area. A brief discussion followed on the best position for the turning area and the Area Roads & Transport Manager advised that this could be agreed when the road construction consent was being finalised.
The Local Member expressed concern that a large number of trees had been removed from along the railway embankment prior to the applicant having applied for planning permission. The applicants confirmed that they had not removed any trees and that the owner of the ground had carried this out. Following discussion the Chairman requested the Area Planning Manager to check the conditions attached to any previous grant of outline planning permission in relation to tree felling, and if there had been a breach of planning conditions to take investigate enforcement action.
The Meeting then heard from the Objector, Mr Reid, who confirmed and gave a detailed account of his objections as submitted to the Planning Authority. Points and issues raised by Mr Reid during his presentation included:-
1) the application conflicted with the Local Plan in several areas;
2) suggested that there was something wrong with the Local Plan initially if
after only two years the Committee were seeking to approve an
application which was contrary to it;
3) in the Local Plan plots were generally 0.1ha whereas he felt this
development would be crammed with plots only being approx. 0.5ha;
4) development would not be in keeping with adjacent dwellings;
5) Policy RS4 gave an occupant density of 30 per acre whereas the
development could be as high as 48;
6) queried why the development would be built in a linear manner when
there was so much space available;
7) the Local Plan indicated there was a need for single persons housing;
8) the proposed houses could hardly be called starter homes when they had
three bedrooms;
9) "need" was quoted in the Local Plan and Brief but nowhere was it
quantified;
10) "infill" – no definition of infill was given in the Local Plan;
11) the applicant appeared to be unaware of the main drain running across
the site which would have to be taken into consideration;
12) the road was in common ownership and no development could take place
without the agreement of all parties concerned;
13) although plans had been submitted for the proposal these lacked
sufficient detail and no distances were given between boundaries and
adjacent proprietors;
14) feels the site description detailed in para 1.4 of the Area Planning
Manager’s report is incorrect as a large part of the site comprises part of
the disused railway embankment;
15) queries the site area shown on the applicants’ plan as it does not equate
with that quoted in the Local Plan;
16) feels that the proposed houses are neither novel or innovative;
17) the applicant has not submitted any proposals for maintenance of the
undeveloped part of the site;
18) queried local demand for housing in Spean Bridge;
19) agrees tourism is a major part of the Spean Bridge economy;
20) stated that when he bought his plot he was led to believe he would be
living in a quiet development of four houses with small chalets at the end
of the road.
Following a lengthy discussion and after hearing the views of each Member in turn, Mr Andrew R McFarlane Slack, seconded by Mr Neil M Clark moved that the application be refused on the grounds of excessive density and inappropriate layout, and that the applicant be invited to submit an amended application taking these points into consideration.
As an Amendment, Mr William MacLachlan, seconded by Mr George Bruce, moved that the application be granted per the Area Planning Manager’s recommendation.
On a vote being taken, there voted for the Amendment 2 and for the Motion 3. The Chairman therefore declared the Motion to be the finding of the meeting.