CONTROVERSIAL plans to carry out alterations and extensions to a property in a Helensburgh conservation area will be put under the public microscope at a meeting in the town next week.
Gail Crawford’s proposal for the property at Redholm, at 4 West Lennox Drive, has already been recommended for approval by Argyll and Bute Council’s planning officers.
But the plans have attracted 28 objections from the public, as well as one representation, and in October the authority’s planning, protective services and licensing (PPSL) committee decided to take them to a public hearing.
Eight councillors out of 12 on the committee decided it to be the best course of action, with three voting to determine the application on the day and the other registering no vote.
The hearing will now take place at Helensburgh and Lomond Civic Centre on Wednesday, February 7 at 10.30am, although virtual attendance is possible.
Campaigners against the plans claimed that work already undertaken at Redholm - which is located in the town's Hill House Conservation Area, just a stone's throw from the Hill House itself - threatened the roots of a historic 175-year-old beech tree.
During the PPSL committee meeting on Wednesday, October 18, Lomond North Independent Councillor Mark Irvine said: “We have a conservation area. It is there for a reason, and the number of objections and representations we have all represent different views on what a conservation area should be.
“I do not profess to being an expert, but we as a committee are representatives of our constituents. This committee meeting is there for us to raise their concerns, unless we reach the threshold for a hearing.
“I am uncomfortable with this application – not in terms of the application extending their property, which I wish them well with – but I have concerns this does not fit with a conservation area.
“I would be minded to ask this to go to a hearing, where the public can get the opportunity to put their views forward.”
However, Councillor Liz McCabe (Independent, Isle of Bute) responded: “I do not think we need a hearing. I am quite happy with what we have in front of us.”
In a handling report, a planning officer said: “I would add that during the determination process the applicants have submitted plans to show a re-routed and repaired surface water drainage scheme for the site.
“It is noted that consent is not required for the repair of existing drainage but is required if there are proposed alterations to this. As such the applicant has submitted drawing to show the surface water drainage alterations.
“I have been to site and viewed the issues with the current broken surface water drainage and I am content that the proposed alterations to reinstate and alter this are sufficient.
"As this is a proposed extension and not a new build there is no requirement for the applicants to install a new SUDS system.”
However, a final decision on whether to allow planning permission will not necessarily be made at the hearing.
A similar meeting on Tuesday, January 30, held in relation to a proposed café in Oban, saw the PPSL committee resolve to continue the application process to seek advice.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here