 |
|
||
|
||
Pitlochry Flats Application
|
||||||
Proposals to demolish a house and restaurant in a Highland Perthshire tourist town and replace them with a four-storey block of 18 flats would be “visually obtrusive and totally out of proportion” with neighbouring properties. And council planners are recommending rejection of the project to a meeting of the Development Control Committee on 30 May. A detailed planning bid has been submitted to demolish The Old Farmhouse Restaurant, and a dwelling, at the corner of Rie-Achan Road, Pitlochry. It would be replaced with a “substantial” block of flats comprising one, one-bedroom unit, 15 two-bedroom units and 2, 3-bedroom units. The development would also include four homes in the “affordable” category, as well as parking for 18 vehicles, a bin storage area and cycle provision. |
But Ian Sleith, the Council’s head of planning, is urging councillors to throw out the application because of the adverse visual impact the building would have.
In a report to the meeting Mr Sleith states: “In terms of the design, including the scale and form, I have grave concerns over the proposed development, particularly as a result of the proposed four storeys.
“At pre-application stage, I advised I would not be able to support such a large development which I consider would be too dominant in its surroundings. However, despite my advice, the application has been formally submitted proposing the four storeys.”
The applicants point out there is a four-storey Perthshire Housing development but there were special circumstances behind that. It was on the site of the former Pitlochry bus station and numerous complaints had been made that it was a “visual eyesore and a dangerous building in the heart of Pitlochry”.
The land was contaminated and in order to meet the extra cost of combating that, four-storeys were required to justify the economics.
“I do not consider a precedent is set to allow such a high building opposite,” stresses Mr Sleith.
Mr Sleith points out he has not objection in principle to housing on the site and adds: “If a reasoned justification for the removal of the existing business was given, and the building was reduced in height and bulk by at least a full storey, then I would suggest the proposal would be more likely to gain my support.”
That would create the potential of providing much greater amenity space for the development, which is “severely lacking” in the current proposal.
The applicant has argued, however, the site wouldn’t be economically viable at such a reduced density. Mr Sleith isn’t impressed with that argument and concludes: “I cannot support the proposal in its current form on the grounds of size and scale, resulting in an over-development of the site.
