AN APPEAL against a refusal of planning permission in principle for a house at Tarbert will be heard this week.
Argyll and Bute Council planning officials rejected the application by Jane Willan in May, saying that the proposal for the building on land south of the village’s War Memorial would have “an unacceptable effect” on the character of the area.
Ms Willan has said that the planned new home has been proposed in order to assist an elderly family member in need of care.
The council will hold a local review body on Friday, February 13, chaired by Councillor Kieron Green (Independent, Oban North and Lorn) and including Councillor Fiona Howard (Labour, Helensburgh Central) and Councillor Peter Wallace (Conservative, Isle of Bute).
Ms Willan said in a statement: “The intention is to provide future care and support, enabling [the relative] to remain in their home and community. This is a relevant material consideration in assessing the wider social value and necessity of the development.
“The application was refused on the grounds that the proposal would have a negative effect on local character and appearance.
“We respectfully disagree with this conclusion and submit that the proposal aligns with national and local planning aims for supporting rural housing, and demonstrates a clear commitment to the next step of the planning process in the design quality, site sensitivity and sustainable development.”
A council planning officer said at the time of refusing the application: “The proposed development indicatively consists of a detached dwellinghouse with associated parking space.
“There are no concerns with the proposal as it relates daylight, overshadowing or amenity. Taking into account the development’s proposed indicative siting and impact on the War Memorial, discussions and consideration were made to review the options to potentially reposition the property on the site.
“However, this posed other challenges as positioning the building further away from the War Memorial would mean positioning it at the narrower end of the site where it would sit tight between the two streets, requiring greater engineering works to the ground as opposed to the proposed indicative positioning and would require alternative access to the site.”
