Committees
Minute of Meeting of the Area Planning and Building Control Committee held on Monday 28th November 2005 at 12.30 pm within the Council Chambers, Lochaber House, High Street, Fort William
Present:
Mr. Drew McFarlane Slack, Chairman
Mr. William Clark
Mr. Thomas MacLennan
Dr. Michael E. M. Foxley
Mr. Brian J. Murphy
Mr. Neil M. Clark
In Attendance:
Mr Dafydd Jones, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Ms Susan Poole, Principal Planning Officer
Mr. Jim Tolmie, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mr. Keith D. Falconer, Area Solicitor/Administrator
Also Present:
Duncan Kelly, Applicants Agent - Item 2.1
Harry Caton, Objector - Item 2.1
Ian Donald MacAskill, Objector - Item 2.1
I A Fraser, Objector - Item 2.1
Laura-Ann Murray, Development Planning Partnership - Item 2.2
Katharine Gott, Development Planning Partnership - Item 2.2
Claire Cameron, Manager Annie Cameron Retirement Home - Item 2.2
Ian Walker - Item 2.2
Lin Walker - Item 2.2
Linda Taylor - Item 2.2
Stephen Ellis - Item 2.2
Steve Abbot - Item 2.2
Keith Rice - Item 2.2
Declarations of Interest
None
1. Apologies
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr Charles King and Mrs Olwyn Macdonald
2. Applications
2.1 Application: 05/00242-245/Fullo
Development: Change of Use and Alterations of Byre into House
and Erection of 3 Houses
Location: Plots 1-4, Mandally, Invergarry
Applicant: Mr I Maclean
There was a re-circulated report (no. PL-76) dated 18 October 2005 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending that the applications be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
Prior to the meeting to determine the application the Committee had carried out a site inspection to note the setting, location and topographical features of the site.
Dr Michael Foxley took no part in the consideration of this item as he had not taken part in the earlier site inspection. The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent and the objectors according to the hearings procedure, during which the following issues were highlighted:
- The houses were designed to replicate existing housing in the area and
would be set in approximately half an acre per property.
- The roads objections, being outwith the applicant’s control were outwith
the scope of the application. Scottish Water had not objected to previous
applications and the applicant was happy to provide a water pump as
necessary. Scottish Water would be responsible for future maintenance of
any water pump installed with their agreement.
- That the Mandally road could cater for this development but was nearing
vehicular capacity.
- That the new access would have a gentler gradient than existing and have a
flat area at the junction.
- In periods of dry weather, water pressure dropped, and the provision of
further housing could only exacerbate this.
- There were concerns that contactors vehicles would discharge debris onto
the Mandally road and that the main croft land would be landlocked with no
access to it
- Access to the croft, would be maintained.
After further debate Mr Andrew MacFarlane Slack seconded by Mr Neil Clark moved that the application GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation of the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager subject to the additional conditions requiring 1) the applicant to demonstrate that he had the written agreement and approval of Scottish Water, 2) detailing the access arrangements to the main croftland to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, 3) the applicant to carry out any works of repair to the Mandally road identified following “marching in/out” examinations; with delegated powers the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager to finalise the conditions.
As amendment Mr Bill Clark moved that applications for houses on Plots 1,3 & 4 be approved as recommended, the application for Plot 2 be refused as over development and not being in line with the existing settlement pattern and that the development not commence until an examination of the water pressure at Mandally is undertaken to ensure an adequate water supply in spells of dry weather.
There being no seconder the Amendment fell.
The Chairman declared the motion to be the finding of the meeting.
2.2 Application: 05/00327/Fullo
Development: Extension to Care Home and Erection of
Conservatory
Location: Annie Cameron Retirement Home, Kinlocheil
Applicant: Annie Cameron Retirement Home
There was a re-circulated report (no. PL-79) date 17th October 2005 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending that planning permission be REFUSED the reasons stated in the report.
Prior to the meeting to determine the application the Committee had carried out a site inspection to note the setting, location and topographical features of the site.
The meeting opened with the Chairman explaining the hearings procedure and identifying which members of the public present who had objected wish to speak. Lin Walker, Linda Taylor and Keith Rice indicated their wish to speak. The Chairman indicated that ten minutes were available for applicants and objectors respectively and thereafter confirmed that those present understood and accepted the terms of the hearings procedure.
The Committee then heard from the Principal Planner who gave a summary of the application.
The Committee then heard from Katharine Gott on behalf of the applicant, who made the following points:-
- There was a need to increase Care Home provision in Lochaber, and the
development would allow the standards to be improved. Annie Cameron
Home was a well run Care Home. The Council’s own Social Work Service
had indicated the number of residential beds had reduced in the area, but
demand was expected to rise in the near future.
- Additional bed spaces would help to secure the viability of the Home.
- Each suite would have en suite facilities, and the proposed development
included a dedicated training room and office. The current operators
already exceeded the minimum national training requirements and this
development would provide better facilities for that.
- Two conservatories would be added for the relaxation of residents.
- The applicants were happy to provide the additional car parking
recommended by Mr Tolmie, the bend improvements and the pedestrian
refuge.
- The whole development had been designed for use by the ambulant
disabled.
- The major proposed extension had been sited to the West, away from the
nearby housing and designed to reflect the character of the existing
building. Landscaping was proposed to soften the impact, and the
applicants were happy to amend the existing planning agreement as
necessary (at this point a photo montage was referred to to illustrate the
proposals, this having been previously been distributed at the site
inspection).
- The Applicants would wish to keep the access roadway in their ownership,
and were willing to pay a commuted sum to Bear Scotland Limited so that
they would thereafter carry out the maintenance of the visibility splays at
the junction with the A830.
Thereafter the Committee heard from the Objectors who had indicated a desire to speak, namely Lin Walker, Linda Taylor and Keith Rice whose submissions included the following main points:-
• The application should be dealt with on planning and not medical grounds.
• The Objectors had been surprised to receive intimation of the application
given the terms of the existing planning agreement, which provided a
restriction on further development, a height limit to the existing hedge and
required various road works to be carried out.
• The Regional Council’s Divisional Engineer had recommended refusal in 1993,
and that whilst the granting of various planning consents had been allowed
to increase the resident numbers, the refusal of an application for a
separate unit in 2002 showed that original concerns regarding over
development were still relevant, namely protection of amenity and road
safety.
• These reasons were still relevant and there had been no significant
change. The area was rural in character, and the Care Home had already
increased in size significantly.
• There had been a number of breaches of the planning conditions in the
Section 75 Agreement.
• In order to be registered as a Care Home all planning conditions required to
be complied with. The access roadway had not been upgraded to a
standard suitable for adoption and the applicant could not do this as they
did not own sufficient land to allow them to do so.
• Many of the works required to the roadway had not been carried out,
resulting in an unsatisfactory situation. An adopted road is appropriate.
Improvements were required at the bellmouth, where the A830 was a fast
stretch of road, at a point popular for overtaking with many vehicles
exceeding the speed limit.
• The use of the former road line of the A830 for amenity purposes was
impossible due to the presence of stock gates, animal droppings, a collapsed
bridge and the storage of material there.
In response to the points made by the Objectors, the Applicants agent Katharine Gott made the following points:
• Advice had been taken from Edinburgh Solicitors who had confirmed that
the terms of the existing Section 75 Agreement could be modified if
necessary.
• The scale and rural setting of the Care Home had been taken into account
when the planning application was lodged.
• The Applicants undertook to carry out any road works that were required.
• That the Council itself owned the former roadway and thus the obligation to
maintain it fell on the Council.
• Her clients had not realised that the hedge required to be trimmed back to
1.5 metres in height but would now attend to that.
The Chairman then confirmed that all those present were satisfied the hearing had been completed appropriately and all persons who wished to speak had been given an opportunity to do so. Members also confirmed that they were happy with all the information they had received.
Members thereafter debated the application during which it was agreed that there should be a report to the Committee on any outstanding enforcement issues regarding previous planning permissions for the Annie Cameron Retirement Home.
Mr Andrew McFarlane Slack Seconded by Mr William Clark moved that the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation and for the reasons stated by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager.
As an Amendment, Dr Michael Foxley Seconded by Mr Neil Clark moved that the consideration of the application be adjourned until all the outstanding issues were addressed, namely the road to be brought to adoptive standard, the removal of windows overlooking neighbouring properties, and foul drainage.
VOTES WERE CAST:
For the Motion
Mr Bill Clark
Mr Thomas MacLennan
Mr Brian Murphy
Mr Drew McFarlane Slack
For the Amendment
Dr Michael Foxley
Mr Neil Clark
The Motion was carried by four votes to two, and accordingly the application was REFUSED