F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00002226\AI00025745\0511WR0.DO C DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor A. Reay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 14 th March 2005 HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND AREA COMMITTEE Discretionary Hearing Date - 29 th November 2005 12 th October 2005 Reference Number: 05/00511/DET Applicants Name: Osborne Interiors Ltd., Application Type: Detailed application Application Description: Erection of 8 dwellinghouses Location: Land North of Empress Drive, Helensburgh (A ) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission: • Erection of 8 dwellings • Formation of 4 new vehicular accesses onto Rhu Road Higher, each serving 2 properties. (ii) Other Specified Operations • Connection to public water supply • Connection to public sewerage system (B) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons listed overleaf. (C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS • Planning permission is sought for the erection of 8 semi-detached dwellings on a 0.4-hectare piece of ground adjacent to Rhu Road Higher. The site is predominantly covered with mature woodland but the rear section of the site contains a number of lock-up garages that are in a poor state of repair. These garages are accessed via a lane that leads onto Empress Drive and are proposed to be demolished as part of the development proposals. The garages are not attractive features but are fairly well screened from public view and do not therefore significantly reduce the visual amenity of the area. The proposed dwellings would be two storeys (8.1m) in height with an integral single garage. Each property would have four bedrooms, two public rooms, 2 ½ bathrooms and measure 9.6m in length and 9.6m in width. Four new vehicular accesses are proposed onto Rhu Road Higher each serving two properties. The existing stone boundary wall would be reduced from 1.2m to 0.9 metres high along its entire length. The houses would be clad in stone, render and grey concrete tiles with upvc windows. • The application site is an area of woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), all but 15% of which is larch with the rest made up of sycamore, silver birch and other species. The site is bounded by two storied, rendered former MoD terraced housing and playing fields with bungalows across the road.
31
Embed
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - …...F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00002226\AI00025745\0511WR0.DO C DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor A. Reay PLANNING
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Local Member - Councillor A. Reay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 14th March 2005 HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND AREA COMMITTEE Discretionary Hearing Date - 29th November 2005 12th October 2005 Reference Number: 05/00511/DET Applicants Name: Osborne Interiors Ltd., Application Type: Detailed application Application Description: Erection of 8 dwellinghouses Location: Land North of Empress Drive, Helensburgh
(A ) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of 8 dwellings • Formation of 4 new vehicular accesses onto Rhu Road Higher, each serving 2
properties. (ii) Other Specified Operations
• Connection to public water supply • Connection to public sewerage system
(B) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons listed overleaf.
(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Planning permission is sought for the erection of 8 semi-detached dwellings on a 0.4-hectare piece of ground adjacent to Rhu Road Higher. The site is predominantly covered with mature woodland but the rear section of the site contains a number of lock-up garages that are in a poor state of repair. These garages are accessed via a lane that leads onto Empress Drive and are proposed to be demolished as part of the development proposals. The garages are not attractive features but are fairly well screened from public view and do not therefore significantly reduce the visual amenity of the area. The proposed dwellings would be two storeys (8.1m) in height with an integral single garage. Each property would have four bedrooms, two public rooms, 2 ½ bathrooms and measure 9.6m in length and 9.6m in width. Four new vehicular accesses are proposed onto Rhu Road Higher each serving two properties. The existing stone boundary wall would be reduced from 1.2m to 0.9 metres high along its entire length. The houses would be clad in stone, render and grey concrete tiles with upvc windows.
• The application site is an area of woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), all
but 15% of which is larch with the rest made up of sycamore, silver birch and other species. The site is bounded by two storied, rendered former MoD terraced housing and playing fields with bungalows across the road.
• The proposed development involves the clear felling of all the existing trees on the site, demolition of the garages and the erection of 8 dwellings, accesses and driveways. Replacement planting would be located to the rear of the development on the boundaries with Empress Drive properties and at the side of the site, leaving the majority of the site clear of trees. The proposed replacement planting would take the form of approximately 120 ‘whips’ that would be 1-1.5 metres in height (approximately 3 – 5 feet)
• In terms of policy the application site is located within a residential area where Policies H4
and H5 of the Dumbarton District, District Wide Local Plan are applicable. These policies together with Policies DC1 and NHL6 state that new development is acceptable only if it has regard to the appearance and character of immediately surrounding areas in terms of design, scale, density and materials and will not lead to the loss of established trees. As the trees on site are covered by a TPO then Policy NHL5 and Structure Plan Policy STRAT FW2 are also applicable. These state that the Council will continue to protect trees within current TPO areas. The proposed development will lead to the total loss of tree cover on this site and thus will obviously not protect trees covered by a TPO. The Council commissioned a detailed tree survey to assess the health and viability of the trees on this site given the applicant’s assertion (and commissioned tree report) that the majority of trees were unsafe. This report concluded that only 4 trees on this site required to be felled for health and safety reasons and that another 18 required remedial works and/or resurvey. This report also concluded that the woodlands did contribute positively to the environment; offering good amenity value and acting as an inter-linking wildlife corridor. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies STRAT FW2, NHL5, NHL6, H4(d) and to H5 (b)
• In addition I am of the opinion that the scale and massing of the proposed new houses are not
in keeping with the character of the immediately surrounding area. The site sits between the two storey terraced properties fronting onto Empress Drive located to the rear of the site and bungalows directly opposite fronting onto Rhu Road Higher. The properties on Empress Drive are 8m high, 8 m wide on plots measuring on average 10m wide by 15m in depth. The bungalows opposite are detached properties on plots with an average of size of 22m in width and 45m in depth. However, given that the application site fronts onto and takes access from Rhu Road Higher then the proposed new dwellings will “read” as being more associated with the bungalows directly opposite than the Empress Drive dwellings. The proposed plots at approximately 11.5 m are narrow in comparison with others on Rhu Road Higher and the footprints of the proposed houses are large in relation to this plot size which has a depth of approximately 40m. This will make the proposed houses, which are set out as 4 pairs of semi-detached dwellings, appear crammed onto the site. The whole of the front of each house is required for car parking, access and turning and thus only a comparatively small area of garden will be useable. In my view the proposed semi-detached dwellings would constitute over-development, will be too bulky and dominating in the streetscene, and will look very out of place when juxtaposed next to single storey bungalows or small terraced houses. This dominant appearance will be particularly noticeable, as the existing mature trees will all be gone and any replacements will be very small and insignificant for many years to come. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy H5 (a).
• The application has not attracted any objections from the Area Roads Manager, Scottish
Water or SNH (although a bat survey has identified that the site is used as a feeding ground for Pipistrelle bats). Helensburgh Community Council have objected on the grounds that the development is contrary to several adopted policies and also to proposed policies contained within the consultative draft Local Plan; will lead to the loss of trees protected by a TPO; would have an unacceptable design and scale of development for the area; would adversely affect wildlife habitats and would cause traffic congestion.
• The development has also attracted significant community interest and to date 12 letters of
support and 777 letters of objection have been received. The specific points of representation and the names and addresses of supporters and objectors are contained within the appendices of this report. It should be noted that a large number of these letters refer to all three planning applications submitted by this applicant for residential development in woodland sites on Cumberland Road and Rhu Road Higher.
In conclusion the proposed development of an area of mature woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order for a residential development of 8 houses would result in the loss of all existing trees and the complete destruction of the established character and appearance of the site. The trees on this site are considered by the Council commissioned tree surgeon to be generally healthy and viable. Their felling on health or safety grounds is not therefore justified. It is considered that the woodland is an attractive and significant landscape feature in the locality that is of good amenity value to the community and to local wildlife. This area of woodland also provides an important role in integrating existing housing into its setting, softening its impact and screening areas of very different housing styles from each other. The loss of this wooded area and its replacement with a suburban residential development and perimeter whip planting will adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. This development is contrary to a number of development plan policies that seek to protect trees and woodlands from inappropriate development pressure due to their importance as attractive landscape features and amenity resources. In addition, the proposed houses are considered to have excessive bulk and mass in relation to their plot size and to adjacent residential development. This will cause the development to appear cramped, to dominate and to look out of place in the established streetscene, an effect exacerbated by the loss of all the mature trees. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons listed overleaf.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 12th October 2005 Author: Lisa Cameron tel. 01436 658886 Contact Point: Howard Young tel. 01436 658888
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 05/00511/DET:
1. The application site has significant amenity value in the immediate area and wider setting of Helensburgh due to its mature tree cover and woodland appearance. The proposed development will result in the loss of this important woodland area, which occupies a prominent position within the locality and which successfully integrates and softens the impact of existing residential development into its wider landscape setting. The total loss of these trees and other vegetation cover and their replacement with substantial dwellings, access road, hardstanding, fences and other associated suburban development will be visually intrusive, visually discordant and will not maintain or enhance the character of the area. The planting of replacement trees 1-1.5 metres in height around part of the perimeter will not be sufficient to retain the woodland character of the site in either the short or the long term. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order and the proposal will prevent significant regeneration and replanting of trees by substantially reducing the areas available for tree cover and changing the character of the site from woodland to suburban garden. This in turn will further undermine the amenity value of the site, will be further visually intrusive and will further contribute to its detrimental impact on adjoining properties and the wider area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the terms of Structure Plan Policy STRAT FW2 and Policies DC1, H4, H5 NHL5 and NHL6 of the Dumbarton District, District Wide Local Plan, which seek to prevent the loss of trees and to maintain and enhance the character of existing residential areas.
2. The proposed plots at 11.5m wide are narrow in comparison with other properties on Rhu Road
Higher which on average are 22m in width. The scale and mass of the proposed houses are comparatively large in relation to the overall plots both in terms of available frontage and overall footprint. As such they will give the appearance of over-development and will look crammed within the site. This cramped appearance will be accentuated by the removal of all the mature vegetation at the front of the site and the provision of only limited replanting. Consequently, the proposed dwellings will be visually dominant, intrusive and will look out of place in the established streetscene. As such the proposed development will have a detrimental impact upon the amenity and character of adjoining properties and the wider area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the terms of Policies DC1, H4 and H5 of the Dumbarton District, District Wide Local Plan which seeks to maintain and enhance the character of existing residential areas.
Argyll and Bute Structure Plan Policy FW2 Development shall not damage nor undermine the key environmental features of important woodland areas including the following categories:
A) Woodland areas and trees which have been mapped for safeguarding in Argyll and Bute
Local Plans or are protected by Tree Preservation Orders or by Conservation Areas.
B) Woodland areas and trees which are identified for safeguarding in planning determinations or agreements or by associated area capacity evaluations or farm, croft and estate development programmes.
C) Woodland and integral open space which is a significant component of determined
woodland grant scheme or equivalent proposal.
D) Ancient and long established semi-natural woodland as identified in Scottish Natural Heritage Inventory sources.
E) Other broadleaf woodland over 1 hectares in extent. Dumbarton District Wide Local Plan Policy DC1 All development proposals will be expected to provide a high standard of building and landscape design, to contribute to environmental quality and to maintain or enhance the amenity of the surrounding area.
All development proposals and applications for planning permission will be considered on the basis of the following Local Plan policy criteria:
1. the location and nature of the proposed development, including land use, layout, design,
external appearance, density, landscaping, open space provision, aspect, daylighting, crime prevention measures and privacy of existing and proposed development;
2. the impact on the natural and built environment, the likely level of environmental pollution and the possible creation of any hazard, or impact on the landscape and overall setting;
3. the relationship to the road and public transport network, means of access, particularly access for disabled people, emergency services, parking provision, and likely scale and type of traffic generation;
4. the availability of infrastructure and relationship to existing community facilities; 5. consistency with the terms of other local plan policies. Policy H4 New housing developments should conform to the following range of considerations: a. Open Space: Open space should be provided in accordance with Policy LR2. b. Phasing of Open Space Provision: The open space provision should be completed
simultaneously with the completion of the housing it is designed to serve and all provision shall be completed not later than the end of the first planting season following the completion of the last house in the development.
c. Design: Good design in terms of layout, appearance, landscaping and regard for privacy standards, as well as good relationships to landscape setting and the character of neighbouring buildings, will be required.
d. Existing Features: All aspects of the development should retain, and where possible enhance, any positive landscape, ecological or townscape features of the housing site and its immediate surroundings. Consequently, existing trees, hedges, shrubs and other natural and man-made features should be incorporated in layouts at every opportunity.
e. Road and Parking Standards: Developers will normally be required to meet road design and parking standards laid down by the Roads Authority. In appropriate locations the Council will actively encourage developers to introduce pedestrian/vehicle shared surface roads as set out in the Council’s guidelines. Consideration will be given to relaxing parking standards in line with variations set out by the Council where special needs/sheltered housing developments are being proposed.
f. Extensions: New housing should be laid out and designed to allow for subsequent extension within “permitted development” limits whilst ensuring it does not detract from the amenity of surrounding buildings.
g. Density: The density of housing units within new residential development proposals should be in the range of the density of surrounding existing housing areas. Notwithstanding this there will be a general presumption against developments in excess of 4 storeys unless exceptional townscape benefits can be demonstrated.
h. Disabled Access: Within estate housing developments, developers will be encouraged to make provision for an element of barrier-free housing for physically disabled occupants.
Policy H5 The Council will seek to maintain and enhance the character of existing residential areas. Development proposals on infill and gap sites will be considered against the following criteria:
a. Proposals for infill residential development will have regard to the appearance and character of immediately surrounding residential areas in terms of the scale and density of development and use of appropriate design and materials.
b. The loss of established trees and hedgerows will be resisted unless their presence fundamentally prevents the development of a site which satisfies all other development criteria defined by Local Plan policies.
c. There will be a presumption against the development of formal and planned open spaces within existing residential areas, unless they have been identified for residential development within this Local Plan.
d. Residential development proposals which are considered to represent over-development in terms of the density and/or extent of development will be resisted.
House extensions and other developments within the curtilage of an existing dwellinghouse should have a high standard of design and external appearance (further advice on house extensions is available in the Council’s Design Guide).
Proposals for non-residential uses will only be favourably considered where it can be demonstrated that the proposed use is ancillary to, and would not result in a significant loss of amenity of the residential character of the area.
Policy NHL5 The Council will continue to protect trees within current Tree Preservation Orders in the Plan area, and where it is considered necessary for amenity reasons to protect further trees or woodland areas, the Council will serve new Tree Preservation Orders. The Council will also continue to protect trees in Conservation Areas.
Policy NHL6 New development proposed on sites with, or adjacent to, existing trees or woodlands will be assessed in accordance with established guidelines. When approving planning applications,
conditions will, be attached to safeguard existing trees and/or plant new trees if appropriate to the size and scale of development.
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP’s) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG’s) NPPG 3: Land for Housing – Indicates that residential development should not result in a loss of green space of importance to the area and valued by the community.
B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Consultations
1. Area Roads Manager (memo dated 1st April 2005) – No objections subject to conditions. 2. Scottish Water (letter dated 31st August 2005) - No objections subject to conditions. 3. SNH (letters dated 25th April and 31st August 2005). – No comments to make on the
proposal except to recommend that a bat survey be carried out at the earliest opportunity prior to determining whether planning permission should be granted. Following receipt of the requested bat survey SNH confirmed that as there were no roost sites identified within the application site then an application for a license would not be necessary on this occasion.
4. Helensburgh Community Council (letter dated 5th April 2005) – Wish to register strong
objections to the proposal on the following grounds; a. The Argyll and Bute Consultative Draft Local Plan indicates that the areas are to be
designated as an ‘Open Space Protection Area’. These local plan policies are material considerations in determining planning applications.
b. The plans contravene items H5, NHL5, NHL6 and DC1 of the Local Plan. Helensburgh Community Council cannot support the contravention of any Local Plan policies.
c. The Council put a Tree Preservation Order on this woodland. While this allows for the felling of diseased or dangerous trees, it assumes that there will replanting. It does not allow for the removal of tracts and the building of dwellings on the site.
d. To approve this development would be to flout the letter and intent of the TPO as well as setting up an unwise and unwanted precedent.
e. The height of the proposed houses, three storeys plus the roof, is not in keeping with the character of the houses in the area, which will be dominated by the new development.
f. There is a real threat to residents posed by increased levels of traffic movement. g. The development would severely conflict with the work of the Tree Conservation Trust
and the sites are also a natural habitat for many species of animals and birds.
5. Forestry Commission (letter dated 4th April 2005) – The clear felling of these woodlands and replacement with relatively dense housing raises the following issues, that should be explored and accounted for in the planning application: a. The loss of landscape features which have become local landmarks and which help ameliorate the surrounding high density housing into the landscape. b. Local members of the community currently heavily use the woodlands for informal recreation and as such the neighbouring residents and local community council should be consulted regarding the loss of this amenity. In addition the exclusion of the public from a recognised recreational resource may have implications under Part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
(iii) Publicity The application was advertised under Article 9 (Vacant Land) as a potential bad neighbour development and as a potential departure from Policies H5, NHL5 and NHL6 of the adopted
Local Plan (overall closing date 29th April 2005). 12 letters of support and 777 letters of objection have been received to date. A significant proportion of all letters (both of support and objection) were of a proforma type. The details of those who have submitted representations are detailed at the end of this report. Summary of the Main Points of Support 1. The project will secure the jobs of employees of the developer for at least 3 years and
will also create employment for others. Comment: In this case this is a very minor and unsubstantiated material consideration that does not overcome the strong policy objections to the development. 2. The site is semi-derelict and the development will greatly enhance the area as straggly
looking trees are an eyesore and give the appearance of being unsafe. The garages have asbestos roofing, which is a health hazard; the site is used for fly tipping and is fouled by dogs.
Comment: I would disagree that the site is semi-derelict or an eyesore. As indicated in my assessment the front of the site is in fact an attractive and heavily wooded area of mature trees and only the garages to the rear are semi-derelict. These are not particularly prominent in the streetscape due to tree-screening. Furthermore, the Council’s appointed tree surgeons have undertaken a detailed tree survey safety inspection and reported that only four trees within this area are required to be felled for safety reasons. I have not observed any significant amounts of fly tipping on this site. 3. Helensburgh needs more housing and the proposed houses although no doubt
expensive will set off a chain reaction releasing cheaper housing as people climb the property ladder. This will attract and retain new people to the town creating employment and prosperity.
Comment: The issue of providing new land for housing in Helensburgh is being dealt with as part of the Local Plan process and in any event is not reason to justify the felling of substantial numbers of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. 4. The proposed design of development and the replacement-planting scheme is well
designed and impressive. The local architect and building company are reputable and the building company takes on apprentices, providing opportunities to young people needing employment.
Comment: Please see my assessment. The characters of the applicant or the agent are not material planning matters. 5. The development is in keeping with the aim of preserving the general amenity of the
area while providing additional housing without extending the boundaries of the town. This is preferable to building on sites that extends urban sprawl.
Comment: Please see my assessment. 6. The proposed replacement trees are of a more appropriate species in the long term
than the generally shallow rooted crop trees that are there at present. The presence of these new trees will provide a screening effect and much more interest in terms of shape and colour than the boring monoculture they replace.
Comment: Members considered the existing trees on site worthy of preservation when they approved the Tree Preservation Order for this site and they are still, in my opinion, worthy of retention today. Any wholesale felling and replanting will inevitably result in the site’s character and appearance changing dramatically. In addition, the applicant’s proposed replanting scheme submitted with the application proposes much smaller trees planted
primarily to the rear and sides of the site with the majority of the land used for housing and garden. This is contrary to the aims of the Tree Preservation Order policy. 7. This detailed site in Helensburgh has been zoned for decades as building land. This
area does not encroach onto greenbelt and is situated within residential areas. Comment: See my assessment. 8. A comprehensive schedule of re-planting has been professionally drawn up showing
clearly the improvements and quality this area deserves. This re-planting schedule has a five year maintenance programme built into ensure the trees/shrubs will mature and thrive.
Comment: See my assessment. 9. The area in question is nothing more than scrubland at present, having been neglected
for many years by previous owners. Developing this area along with the re-planting could only be an improvement.
Comment: See my assessment. Summary of the Main Points of Objection 1. The proposed houses are inappropriate for the site due to their size and in particular
their height being out of character with that already present in the area. Two storey houses are not in keeping with the bungalows located between Dobbies Garden Centre and the sports field.
Comment: I also have concerns over the scale and massing of the proposed houses. Please see my assessment for further details. 2. There is only a pavement on one side of Rhu Road Higher and the extra driveways will
reduce its safety to pedestrians. There is no room for a pavement on the north side of Rhu Road Higher.
Comment: The Area Roads Manager has no objections to the proposals. 3. The proposed replacement tree planting is mostly of species that will grow high and
have dense foliage in summer and this will cause shading and leaf fall problems for neighbours. The proposed replacement trees will be too close to nearby houses and may also cause damage to property.
Comment: This is not a relevant planning consideration. Damage to property by trees is a civil matter. 4. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), which should be respected.
TPO’s are being regularly ignored in this area and it is time we respected the TPO’s we have and refuse planning applications that will lead to the loss of protected trees and are thus detrimental to the whole community apart from those who benefit financially.
Comment: See my assessment. 5. The wood is one of the last vestiges of the whole wood owned originally by the MoD. It
is time that we preserved what little is left. Comment: See my assessment. 6. The proposal is contrary to Policies H5, NHL5, NHl6 and DC1 of the Local Plan. Comment: See my assessment.
7. The woodland is an important natural habitat for wildlife including 20 species of birds,
hedgehogs, voles, squirrels, bats etc. Comment: SNH have no objections to the proposals in terms of wildlife issues. A bat survey has been carried out and this showed that the site is used as feeding areas by Pipistrelle bats. However, there is no evidence of bat roosts on the site and SNH has advised that an application for a licence will not be required on this occasion. 8. A Tree Conservation Trust was created in Helensburgh over 2 years ago which has
been monitoring old trees and planting new ones throughout the town. This plan is ongoing and successful. In view of this how could a planning application be granted whereby all the trees in question are replaced by expensive housing?
Comment: This point is not relevant to consideration of this planning application. 9. The present character of the area would be severely affected by the loss of the
woodlands and the established amenity would be destroyed if they were to be redeveloped. They are an important environmental feature of the area and of Helensburgh itself and are very prominent and visible from surrounding areas and vantage points.
Comment: See my assessment. 10. The woodlands form a setting for the remains of Ardencaple Castle. Comment: See my assessment. 11. The site has been recognised as being one of the key environmental features of the
area as indicated in the new Local Plan under preparation. Comment: The new Local Plan is not yet a material consideration in the determination of this application. 12. The sites are valued by the community for their contribution to open space provision
within the existing residential area. It is an attractive area that does not have any fly tipping. Generations of children have played in the woods and should be allowed to continue to do so. The owners have been requested to prepare a management plan for the woods and this is welcomed, as it will protect the character of the area as well as existing wildlife.
Comment: See my assessment. 13. The blocking of existing footpaths in the woods with felled timber is unacceptable. Comment: This is not directly a planning matter. 14. SNH is carrying out a bio-diversity study on the woodlands, investigating the possibility
of bats roosting therein. Bats are protected by law and no development should be allowed if their presence is confirmed.
Comment: See point 7 above. 15. Recent government policies encourage the planting of trees within communities and
trees are vital to the health of people. They should not be removed. Comment: See my assessment. 16. The application states that 4 parking spaces will be provided for each house and this will
lead to traffic congestion as well as dangers to pedestrians and children. The proposal
will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic on Rhu Road Higher and Cumberland Avenue especially at peak times. If residential development is permitted on this site there should be a roundabout installed to calm traffic.
Comment: The Area Roads Manager has no objections on road safety grounds. 17. Too many new driveways are proposed which will also compromise safety. Comment: See point 16 above. 18. The loss of some trees on this site as a result of recent felling is an act of vandalism. Comment: A separate report on this matter was presented to the August 2005 Area Committee. 19. The removal of the trees could give rise to rainwater flooding to the houses in
Ardencaple Drive and an increase in soil erosion to surrounding areas. Comment: The removal of trees does have the potential to give rise to flooding and erosion. If I was recommending approval of this application then I would recommend that appropriate conditions be imposed to ensure that any surface water runoff was being attenuated and that appropriate drainage was being provided. 20. The proposals are contrary to Policy FW2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan and to
guidance contained in NPPG 3, 11 and 14 Comment: See my assessment. 21. Perimeter planting of trees does not compensate for the loss of these woodlands. Comment: See my assessment.
22. The development would breach Green Belt policies. Comment: The site is not part of the Green Belt. 23. The recent tree removal has significantly increased the echo effect of noise, which
reverberates between the banking and Ardencaple Drive and this will increase as more trees are removed.
Comment: This is not a relevant ground for refusing planning permission. 24. How was land purchased from the MoD for a relatively small sum to yield £2.5 – £3
million in sales for speculators? Comment: This is not a relevant planning matter. 25. There is a Right of Way across the site. Comment: I am advised that there is no formally recognised Right of Way through the site at present. However, I understand that the Council is investigating (in consultation with the Rights of Way Society) whether there is enough evidence to support the assertion by several individuals that the site meets the criteria for it to be added to the Right of Way. If a Right of Way were shown to have been established then this would be a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. 26. The present semi-rural character of the site will be damaged by the partial removal and reduction in height of the dry stone dyke, which runs the length of the site.
Comment; The reduction in height to 0.9 metre of this traditional stone wall would be an untypical height for this sort of feature. 27. The development will increase the visibility of the former MoD houses on Empress Drive that are of poor aesthetic quality. Comment: The removal of all the trees will remove all the screening between the road and the houses on Empress Drive. 28.The new development will have multiple car parking to the front and this will give the appearance of a garage forecourt.
Comment: I would agree that a very substantial area to the front of the proposed houses would be hard surfaced. Together with the loss of vegetation and the reduction in height of wall this will, in my opinion, have a negative impact upon the streetscape. 29. The development will affect a well-used access through the existing wood for pedestrians. Comment: See point 25 above. In addition to the Right of Way issue there is now a right of access in terms of the Land Reform Act. 30. The submitted plans do not show the correct boundary with some properties on Empress Drive.
Comment: I have checked this point with the applicants and they have confirmed that the application boundary edged in red relates wholly to land within the applicants’ ownership. This boundary relates to the kerb inside the fence and not the fence itself. 31. The area of tarmac in front of the existing garages allows access to the rear of Empress Drive properties and aids security. The loss of this access will reduce safety. Comment: This is a civil matter. 32. The tarmac area to the front of the garages is also the location for telephone poles and the development would limit access and maintenance.
Comment: This is a civil matter. Access to services would require to be maintained or the telephone poles would require to be moved at the applicants’ expense. 33. The proposed development will destroy the outlook from 39 Rhu Road Higher as a brick
gable wall will be located only yards from the living room window and cause significant loss of light to all the main rooms.
Comment: The proposed house will be 15 metres from the back wall of number 39 Rhu Road Higher. Mature trees on the boundary already shade the property. I am therefore of the opinion that the neighbouring house will not cause significant loss of light. 34. The development will affect the value of neighbouring property. Comment: This is not a material planning consideration. 35. The proposal involves too much development being squeezed into the available space
and the development will look crammed. Comment: The density of proposed development will give an average plot size of under 400 square metres. In this location and given that substantial houses are proposed in comparatively small gardens I would also be of the opinion that the scale of development is out of keeping with surrounding houses.
36. The proposed replacement trees will be too small to have a screening effect. The development will also cause an invasion of privacy due to overlooking of gardens and habitable rooms.
Comment: I would agree that the replacement planting will not provide effective screening for a number of years and that this will lead to a very open form of development. With regard to privacy there is at least 24 metres between the habitable rooms of the proposed houses and those established properties on Empress Drive. This is in excess of the minimum 18 metres window to window distance required by policy and I am therefore satisfied that there will be no loss of privacy to habitable rooms. There will however be an amount of overlooking of private rear gardens by upper windows in the new development. 37. The proposed new development does not include any affordable housing. Comment: This is correct. There is no requirement to provide affordable housing in the current Local Plan except where specifically identified on the Local Plan map. 38. The site has never had any windblown trees. In fact the trees have always acted as a
windbreak protecting adjacent housing. Comment: See my assessment. 39. If housing is required in the area it should be in the form of bungalows.
Comment: I would agree that the proposed development is out of keeping with the established built form. However, there are also serious policy constraints on the site that presume against the principle of any residential development on this site. 40. The applicants’ woodland management plan/survey is inaccurate, ambiguous and the
proposed replacement planting does not tie in with the proposed replacement planting in the planning application. The sizes of replacement trees proposed in the planning application also do not reflect the conclusions of the management plan which recommended that a variety of sizes of replacement trees be planted on site.
Comment: I assume that this point refers to the differences between the replanting scheme proposed as part of the planning application and the replanting scheme proposed as part of the earlier woodland management plan submitted as part of the justification for felling trees covered by a TPO. There are considerable differences between these plans, however this report is concerned only with the planning application proposals.
Mr L W Mouat 39 Cumberland Avenue Ardencaple Helensburgh G84 30-Mar-05 B Carroll Casita Rhu Road Higher Helensburgh G84 8JR 30-Mar-05 R Lane & Elizabeth Henry 14 Frazer Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QP 30-Mar-05 Mr And Mrs T A Evans 1 Mains Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QW 30-Mar-05 Mrs V Watkinson Clunes Rhu Road Higher Helensburgh G84 8JR 31-Mar-05 Arian And Bill Inglis Gareside Cottage Shandon Helensburgh G84 8NW 31-Mar-05 Mr And Mrs M Taheny 6 Bonar Law Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HD 31-Mar-05 J Rydall The Rowans 12A Queen Street Helensburgh 31-Mar-05 J Macintyre Bath House 131 East Princes Street Helensburgh G84 31-Mar-05 Findlay McQuarrie 6 Kathleen Park Helensburgh G84 8TH 01-Apr-05 April Wylie MA 5 Scotstoun Street Whiteinch Glasgow G14 0TA 01-Apr-05 James P Rogers 1 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh 04-Apr-05 Gillian Rogers 1 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh 04-Apr-05 Mr D E And Mrs B P Lewis 29 Ardencaple Drive Helensburgh G84 8PT 04-Apr-05 Ann R Leggat 45 Loch Drive Helensburgh G84 8PZ 05-Apr-05 Alastair Macbeth 40 West Montrose Street Helensburgh G84 9PF 05-Apr-05 Mrs J Mance 7 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QE 05-Apr-05 Mr H Mance 7 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QE 05-Apr-05 Mrs L J Thorndike 11 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QE 05-Apr-05 Michael V Leech 6 Dalmore Crescent Helensburgh G84 8JP 05-Apr-05 C F Leggat 45 Loch Drive Helensburgh G84 8PZ 05-Apr-05 Mrs A Brown 38 Ardencaple Drive Helensburgh G84 8PT 06-Apr-05 T Stewart Aitken FRICS 4 Sinclair Drive Helensburgh G84 9AZ 07-Apr-05 Helensburgh Community Council C/o Nigel Millar 28 George Street Helensburgh 07-Apr-05 Helensburgh And District Civic Society The Old Manse Shandon Helensburgh G84 8NP 11-Apr-05 Geraldine Whyte Kirkpark Cottages Church Road Rhu G84 8RW 12-Apr-05
Stan Latimer Chairman Helensburgh Community Woodlands Group) 17 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh G84 12-Apr-05
J MacAuley 8 Summerhouse Summerhouse Darlington DL2 3OD 12-Apr-05 Helen Whyte 9 Broomieknowe Gardens Burnside Rutherglen G73 3 12-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 2 Troon Avenue East Kilbride G84 8TH 12-Apr-05 Louise Pope 26 Bullwood Avenue Crookston Glasgow G53 7PL 12-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 8 Frazer Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QP 12-Apr-05 Mrs P M Newton 69 East King Street Helensburgh G84 7RE 12-Apr-05 T G Milne 1 Hillview Drive Helensburgh G84 9BW 12-Apr-05 O M Salmond Hawksdale Church Avenue Cardross G82 5NS 12-Apr-05 P M Nisbet Tyrhiu Rhu By Helensburgh 12-Apr-05 G Laird 2/1 12 Salen Street Craigton Glasgow G52 1EB 12-Apr-05 P Kennedy Levenford Villa 17 Westbridgend Dumbarton G82 4AD 12-Apr-05 Mrs P Kennedy 17 West Bridgend Dumbarton G82 4AD 12-Apr-05 E Angus 6 Duchess Park Helensburgh 12-Apr-05 Cecelia Griffin Bridgend Portincaple By Garelochhead G84 12-Apr-05 J McCowan Auchendennan Farm Arden G83 8RB 12-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier Auchendennan Farm Arden G83 8RB 12-Apr-05 David McCowan Auchendennan Farm Arden G83 8RB 12-Apr-05 L Smart 126 East Princes Street Helensburgh G84 7DU 12-Apr-05 Ian Williams Kirkton Farm Cottage Darleith Road Cardross G82 5EL 12-Apr-05 D Carmichael 26 Cobbler View Arrochar 12-Apr-05
Miss M Mundie 52 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Mrs M T Cairney 44 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Mr T Cairney 44 Ardencaple Qudrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Denis Cairney 106 Bonhill Road Dumbarton G82 2DX 18-Apr-05 Jan K Marley 76 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Mrs A Spy 72 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Suzanne Wardle 68 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 W Dickson 35 Garshake Road Dumbarton G82 3LE 18-Apr-05 Linda Hunter 58c Whiteford Road Dumbarton G82 3JD 18-Apr-05 E Murray 64 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 M Murray 64 Ardencaple Road Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Walter Stewart And C Averill 22 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G74 5JQ 18-Apr-05 Mrs C Averill 22 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 20 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 K McCrea 20 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Mrs Christine Byrd 15B West Argyle Street Helensburgh G84 8UU 18-Apr-05 M Mackenzie 18 Ardencaple Drive Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 A C Mackenzie 18 Ardencaple Drive Helensburgh G84 8PS 18-Apr-05 Ian Brown 47 Napier Avenue Cardross G82 5JH 18-Apr-05 R Reading 8 Stafford Street Helensburgh G84 9JU 18-Apr-05 T C Lamb Rhu Cottage Ferry Road Rhu Helensburgh G84 8NF 18-Apr-05 Mr G Betts 20 Baird Avenue Helensburgh G84 8DW 18-Apr-05 Margaret G Hendrie 4 Hanover Street Helensburgh G84 7HL 18-Apr-05 Mr D Keir 20 Baird Avenue Helensburgh G84 8DW 18-Apr-05 Mr D Smith 20 Baird Avenue Helensburgh G84 8DW 18-Apr-05 A S Young 160/8 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DT 18-Apr-05 A Smith 10 Inchkeith Avenue Dundee DD5 24S 18-Apr-05 K Betts 65 Millstroun Crescent Paisley PA11 1RG 18-Apr-05 Elizabeth K Sinclair 4 Glenan Gardens Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 R Doig 6 Sunningdale Place Helensburgh G84 7JB 18-Apr-05 G Wylie 33 Barclay Drive Helensburgh G84 9RA 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 15B Buchanan Road Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 M E M Cooper 160/10 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Sarah M Macklin 160/12 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DT 18-Apr-05 Mick McGourlay 160/12 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DT 18-Apr-05 M Macklin 160/12 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DT 18-Apr-05 Tina Smith Flat 6 160 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 5 Armstrong Road Helensburgh G84 7UE 18-Apr-05 Mr R D Baker 5 Armstrong Road Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 160/5 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Michael Cluer 160/5 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 John Delaney 160/1 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Sarah Ingram 160/7 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DT 18-Apr-05 N Wilson 158/10 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 69 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Hugh Ward 126 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DH 18-Apr-05 Andrew Falconer 126 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DH 18-Apr-05 Jenny Falconer 126 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DH 18-Apr-05 Miss C MacLure 3 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05
F P MacDonald 5 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Janet MacDonald 5 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Emma Craig 14 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 M MacDougall 18 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Mrs Fiona Baxter 16 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 R Miller 24 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 H Stenhouse 34 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 John Sharkey 129 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Rita Sharkey 129 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DH 18-Apr-05 J Sharkey 129 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DH 18-Apr-05 E Thomson 127 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Mrs C Connelly 125 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Mark Waugh 121 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 T Willis 95 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 C Benst 11 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 13 Sutherland Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 David Andrews 15 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 17 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 22 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 K Stocks 14 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 A G Stocks 14 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier Kossington 10 Sutherland Street Helesnburgh G84 8EW 18-Apr-05 Roger P H Green 170 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8EY 18-Apr-05 Anne M Green 170 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8EY 18-Apr-05 Jean Howie 8 Sutherland Place Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Alan Day 4 Sutherland Place Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Audrey Day 4 Sutherland Place Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier Glyndale 6 McKenzie Drive Balloch G83 8HL 18-Apr-05 M Bateman 2 Sutherland Place Helensburgh G84 8BF 18-Apr-05 C Marrison 6 Sutherland Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Mrs Foster 4 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EN 18-Apr-05 M Carroll Casita Rhu Road Higher Helensburgh G84 8JR 18-Apr-05 B Carroll Casita Rhu Road Higher Helensburgh G84 8JR 18-Apr-05 Miss Linda Burrell 145 Feorlin Way Garelochhead G84 0BE 18-Apr-05 Graham Paterson 6 Princes Street Campbeltown PA28 6DX 18-Apr-05 Arthur Finlay 128 Mingulay Street Milton Glasgow G22 7DH 18-Apr-05 Tom McAuley Camdamora Church Road Arrochar G83 6AB 18-Apr-05 Nigel Brendan Burns 158/12 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Linda Lamington 130 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DJ 18-Apr-05 Joe Ward 25 Barrs Road Cardross 18-Apr-05 Mr Jamie Wrethman 2 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Mrs J Wrethman 2 Ardencaple Quadrant Helensburgh G84 8DR 18-Apr-05 Lisa Smith 132 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Danielle Pearson 3 Lineside Walk Rhu Helensburgh G84 8JH 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 132 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 132 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 132 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 A Chalmer 132 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Douglas McGugan 136 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05
Fiona Black 136 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Stephen Merrigan 140 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DJ 18-Apr-05 J M Queen 148 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Carol McGourlay 150 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Alison Butler 6 Strathclyde Place Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Doreen McLean 23 Waverley Avenue Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 E Doig 6 Sunningdale Place Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 R E Petrie 50 Loch Drive Helensburgh G84 8PZ 18-Apr-05 A Stenhouse 144 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 J P Hanning 6 Waverely Avenue Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 K Stenhouse 144 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 7 Sutherland Street Helensburgh G84 8EN 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 1 Sutherland Place Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 A Gardner 4 Courtrai Avenue Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 9 Sutherland Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Isobel Turnball 139 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 143 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 J Taylor 210 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 212 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 J Crawford 157 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 A C Watson 19 Ferniegair Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HB 18-Apr-05 J Smith 240 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8HA 18-Apr-05 David Speed 153 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 A C Dickson 238 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8HA 18-Apr-05 Iain Baird 234 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 A M Eaton 236 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8HA 18-Apr-05 J L Eaton 236 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8HA 18-Apr-05 K Davis 232 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 J Davis 232 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Margaret Horrell 222 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8HA 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 218 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 D M Saville 216 West Princes Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 E Blackwell 18 Bonar Law Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HD 18-Apr-05 J K Blackwell 18 Bonar Law Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HD 18-Apr-05 Robert King-Clark Amberwood Shandon Helensburgh G84 8NP 18-Apr-05 Jean King-Clark Amberwood Shandon Helensburgh G84 8NP 18-Apr-05 J S Martin 5 Bonar Law Avenue Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier Northborne Ferniegair Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HB 18-Apr-05 A Stewart 2 Ferniegair Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HB 18-Apr-05 Angela D Stewart 2 Ferniegair Avenue Helensburgh G84 8HB 18-Apr-05 G Fleming 12 Courthill Rosneath Helensburgh G84 0RW 18-Apr-05 John And Barbara Gilchrist Flat 8 Larchfield Colquhoun Street Helensburgh G84 9JG 18-Apr-05 Kim Moore 1/5 Hood Court Helensburgh G84 8DS 18-Apr-05 E Kirkby Flat 9 158 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 Alexis Waddell 158/11 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 E O'Donnell 158/4 West King Street Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 S Johnston 40 Johnson Court Helensburgh 18-Apr-05 C J Clark 2/3 Hood Court Helensburgh G84 8DS 18-Apr-05 E Clark 2/3 Hood Court Helensburgh G84 8DS 18-Apr-05
Mr Latimer Chairman Helensburgh Community Woodland Group 17 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QE 25-Apr-05
Mr K D Griffiths 4 Kent Drive Churchill Helensburgh G84 9RP 25-Apr-05 Fiona Chalmers 19 Campbell Street Helensburgh G84 8BQ 25-Apr-05 David Robertson 38 Loch Drive Helensburgh G84 8PZ 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 10 Paterson Drive Helensburgh G84 9QY 25-Apr-05 M Winton 1 Paterson Drive Helensburgh G84 9QY 25-Apr-05 D M Stalker Glenburn Cottage Shore Road Clynder G84 25-Apr-05 N Peden 29 Craigrownie Gardens Kilcreggan G84 0HY 25-Apr-05 E Sanderson 5 Paterson Drive Helensburgh G84 9QY 25-Apr-05 P Miller 60 East King Street Helensburgh G84 7QR 25-Apr-05 Elizabeth MacLaren 4 Kildonan Drive Helensburgh G84 9SA 25-Apr-05 Isobel Jones Clarendale Main Road Garelochhead G84 0EG 25-Apr-05 A B Costello 6 Bannachra Drive Helensburgh G84 8DF 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 7 MacLeod Crescent Helensburgh G84 9QX 25-Apr-05 Martyn Ross 9 MacLeod Crescent Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 C C Finn 11 MacLeod Crescent Helensburgh G84 9QX 25-Apr-05 Mr J Sawyer 13 MacLeod Crescent Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Mrs J MacPherson 15 McLeod Crescent Helensburgh G84 9QX 25-Apr-05 M Ferguson 16 Paterson Drive Helensburgh G84 9QY 25-Apr-05 Mr And Mrs Ferguson 16 Paterson Drive Helenburgh G84 9QY 25-Apr-05 Margaret Roberts 12 Paterson Drive Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 14 Paterson Drive Helensburgh G84 9QY 25-Apr-05 J Shilp 68 Coulport Place Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Mrs Catherine Shilp 68 Coulport Place Helensburgh G84 8TL 25-Apr-05 Rosaleen Bray 96 West King Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 N Bray 96 West King Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 E Buist 100 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8EQ 25-Apr-05 C McLaren Strathcona 116 West King Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 P Mckay 118 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8oQ 25-Apr-05 B McKay 118 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DQ 25-Apr-05 R Foy Woodneuk 120 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DQ 25-Apr-05 L Coyle 137 West King Street Helensburgh G84 25-Apr-05 J Coyle 137 West King Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 G G Coyle 137 West King Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Andrea M Hunt 119 West King Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Sheila Wilson 66 Campbell Street Helensburgh G84 9QN 25-Apr-05 Miss J A Peart Flat G 23 John Street Helensburgh G84 8XL 25-Apr-05 Laura M Cowan 19 Bannachra Drive Helensburgh G84 25-Apr-05 A Roders 23 Bannachra Drive Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 1 Bannachra Drive Helensburgh G84 25-Apr-05 Amanda McDonald 17 Parkvale Way Erskine 25-Apr-05 C R Parkes Kinnoul Drymen Road Balloch 25-Apr-05
Owner/Occupier 16 Normanhurst Court 124 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8Dhj 25-Apr-05
Alan Boag Flat 2/1 70 Bolldale Street Quayside Glasgow 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 184 Middleton Street Alexandria G83 0DJ 25-Apr-05 G Watson 10 Broom Road Rosneath G84 0RY 25-Apr-05
C Lee 31 Suffolk Street Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 Julie Fraser 14 Barclay Drive Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 A McGlynn 10 Barclay Drive Helensburgh G84 9RD 25-Apr-05 S Hamilton 8 Barclay Drive Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 E Whatney 6 Barclay Drive Helensburgh G84 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 26 Barclay Drive Helensburgh G84 9RB 25-Apr-05 Anne Baker` 27 Barclay Drive Helensburgh G84 9RA 25-Apr-05 M Woods 24 Edward Drive Helensburgh 25-Apr-05 C G Young 22 Edward Drive Helensburgh G84 9QP 25-Apr-05 Stephanie Matheson 20 Edward Drive Helensburgh G84 9Qp 25-Apr-05 Gillian Farrow 16 Edward Drive Helensburgh G84 9QP 25-Apr-05 Owner/Occupier 14 Edward Drive Helensburgh G84 9QP 25-Apr-05 Steve Kirkby 8 Edward Drive Helensburgh G84 9QP 25-Apr-05 Susan King 3a Edward Drive Helensburgh G84 9QP 25-Apr-05 Ellen Booth 46 Suffolk Street Helensburgh G84 25-Apr-05 F Booth 46 Suffolk Street Helensburgh G84 9QZ 25-Apr-05
N D Bowers 17 Edward Drive Helensburgh
25-Apr-05
Mr Kenneth White 30 Barclay Drive Woodend Helensburgh G84 9RA 25-Apr-05 A Christie 44 Suffolk Street Helensburgh G84 9QZ 25-Apr-05 Mrs J A Lang 75 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Martin Robertson 83 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Alex Robinson 83 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Denise Munro 85 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Joanne Johnson 107 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 T Gallier 105 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Mr A K Webb 99 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Mr M Kennedy 95 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 25-Apr-05 Fiona Gumbrell 91 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RU 26-Apr-05 Mr R MacAuley 40 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RR 26-Apr-05 Mr L Pickard - Morris 28 Kent Drive Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 Mrs L Pickard - Morris 28 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RP 26-Apr-05 Keith Beggs 2 Kent Court Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 Andy Middleton 12 Kent Drive Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 A M Barton 7 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RT 26-Apr-05 Wendy Young 25/27 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RT 26-Apr-05 Rose Bell 29 Kent Drive Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 Mrs A Turner 49 Kent Drive Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 Leigh Marshall 67 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RT 26-Apr-05 Mr C F Martin 57 Kent Drive Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 H E Sharkey 17 Williamson Drive Helensburgh 26-Apr-05 J Rogers 16 Williamson Drive Helensburgh G84 26-Apr-05 Lewis Halbrook 53 Kent Drive Helensburgh G84 9RT 26-Apr-05 B Weintz 9 MacLachlan Road Helensburgh G84 9BX 26-Apr-05 Marion Hawthorn 65 Abbott Crescent Clydebank G81 1AB 26-Apr-05 John Hawthorn 65 Abbott Crescent Clydebank G81 1AB 26-Apr-05 Ken Prior 10 Golf View Bearsden Glasgow 26-Apr-05
Maria Marton 13 Barge Court Rhu G84 26-Apr-05 Ian Matheson 9 Laggary Road Rhu G84 26-Apr-05 Anna Marton 11 Laggary Road Rhu G84 26-Apr-05 F McBrierty 7 Laggary Road Rhu G84 8RJ 26-Apr-05 Mr A S Young 160/8 West King Street Helensburgh G84 8DT 26-Apr-05 Elizabeth Speller 81 East King Street Helensburgh G84 7RG 26-Apr-05 Mr And Mrs A J Stewart 29 Loch Drive Helensburgh G84 8PZ 27-Apr-05 Miss E Scott-Adamson Endrick 21 Dalmore Crescent Helensburgh G84 8JP 29-Apr-05 Mr N Conley And Miss L Conley 30 Baird Avenue Helensburgh G84 8DW 03-May-05 S Mannucci Camis Eskan House Coach House No. 3 Helensburgh 04-May-05 A Forsyth 13 Glen Drive Helensburgh G48 9BJ 06-May-05 Mr McConnell 27 John Street Helensburgh G84 8XL 06-May-05 L Proctor 2 Baird Avenue Helensburgh G84 8DW 06-May-05 Owner/Occupier 10 Queen Street Helensburgh G84 9LG 06-May-05 Amy Hall 3 Lever Road Helensburgh G84 9DP 06-May-05 Julie Andrew 17 Malcolm Place Churchill Helensburgh G84 9HW 06-May-05 Alison McGall Dunadd Pier Road Rhu Helensburgh 06-May-05 Helensburgh Community Council Nigel Miller (Chairman) 29 George Street Helensburgh 18-May-05 Mrs J A Heap 14 Arkwright Road Marple Stockport Cheshire SK6 7DE 20-May-05 Dubhghlas Irbhinn 4 Alltna Blathach Loch Eck Argyll PA23 8SG 20-May-05 Tina Irbhinn 4 Alt Na Blathaich Loch Eck Argyll PA23 8SG 20-May-05 Mrs Elaine Allan 9 Alyssum Crescent Motherwell ML1 1DF 20-May-05
J Abbott 15 Kirkmichael Avenue Glasgow G11 7QP
20-May-05
Mr R Allan 9 Alyssum Crescent Motherwell ML1 1DF 20-May-05 Miss Lesley Cameron 6 Riverview Place Glasgow G5 8GB 20-May-05 Dr Gayle M Addis 36 Westbourne Gardens Glasgow G12 9PF 20-May-05 Mr Neil N B Conley 30 Baird Avenue Helensburgh G84 8DW 23-May-05 Mr Jonathan Stevenson 8 Cumberland Avenue Helensburgh G84 8QG 21-Jun-05
1. Geraldine Whyte Kirkpark Cottages Church Road Rhu G84 8RW 12-Apr-052. Ian Cameron 158/7 West King Street Helensburgh 13-Apr-053. Richard Schooling 10 West Montrose Street Helensburgh G84 9NE 19-Apr-054. S Paterson 4 St Modens Way Rosneath Helensburgh 21-Apr-055. H Daly 28 East King Street Helensburgh 21-Apr-056. Mr H Paterson 93 East Clyde Street Helensburgh 21-Apr-057. Mrs E Arnott 7 Westborne Gardens Helensburgh 21-Apr-058. Fiona Chalmers 19 Campbell Street Helensburgh G84 8BQ 26-Apr-059. Mr C Conkie 24 Normanhurst Court West King Street Helensburgh 27-Apr-0510. Alistair Bellshaw 17 Ferry Road, Rosneath 10-Oct-0511. Derek Harkin 41 Kirkmichael Road, Helensburgh 5-Oct-05
12. D S C Arthur 26 West Argyle Street, Helensburgh 29-Sep-05