GO-Ahead Given For Gourock Self-Build Housing Plots Despite Stray Golf Shot Fears

INVERCLYDE Council’s rejection of a residential development in upper Gourock has been overturned by a Government planning expert who said its decision had been unreasonable.

Inverdunning (Gourock) Ltd have now been given the go-ahead for six self-build housing plots in the woodland grounds of a bungalow beside 24 Rosemount Place, Trumpethill. The bungalow is to be refurbished.

Nearly 50 objections were received by the council, raising fears about increased traffic, road safety, the impact on wildlife and habitat and loss of a recreational area.

Inverclyde planning officers had urged approval for the application but councillors on Inverclyde planning board voted 6:3 to refuse the proposal in May.

Councillors had concerns about the road layout and also said the development failed to protect nearby Gourock Golf Club (established in 1896) which, they asserted, is a historic asset.

The council considered that the probability of golf balls being sliced to the right from the 10th tee was such that there was a threat of the course layout being compromised if the proposed development were to proceed.

In its representation to the appeal, the golf club stated: “We can guarantee without doubt, that these properties and their occupants will be subject to regular ball strikes.” The club estimated that one in 250 shots would stray into the site, which amounted to 78 a year.

In his decision document, Mike Croft, an appeal reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers, said: “I see no basis for regarding the golf club or its course as historic assets. The council does not explain what it is that it thinks gives the club and/or its course historic value.

“Having visited the 10th tee during my site inspection, and having noted the general direction in which balls are intended to go from there, I agree with the golf club that the prospect exists of balls being hit into the site.

“It follows that golf balls are now being hit into a site that is garden ground. Although the intensity of the site’s residential use would increase if the appeal project were to proceed, the problem is an existing one, and it is a problem for the golf club.

“I understand that the appeal site itself was previously part of the golf club’s land and was sold in the 1950s, with other land nearby, for residential development.

“I saw during my site inspection that there is scope for further planting within the golf course land that could eliminate, or at least very substantially reduce, the risk of balls being hit into the appeal site.”

Mr Croft also dismissed concerns about road layout. He stated: “I do not consider the council’s concern about an illogical plan for Rosemount Place to be valid. A road with footways at both ends and a narrow, shared surface, single lane in the centre would indeed be an illogical arrangement and a poor kind of connection if it were proposed.

“But it simply is not proposed here: the extension of Rosemount Place into the appeal site would consist of a 4.8 metres wide shared surface just like the existing shared surface. There is nothing illogical in that. The council Roads Officer’s view was that a shared surface 4.3 metres wide would be adequate within the site but, as I indicate, 4.8 metres is proposed.

“During my site inspection I observed conditions carefully on the existing shared surface part of Rosemount Place, which is an adopted road. It is about 4.8 metres wide, meaning that two cars, proceeding slowly, should be able to pass each other.

“Problems arise at the moment from parking on the road, and from visibility around the bend about 30 metres from the appeal site boundary. As the appellant points out, if the first problem amounts to obstruction it can be dealt with through standard traffic enforcement procedures.

“The second problem is not assisted by a hedge which overhangs the road, but again, as mentioned by the appellant, that is something the roads authority is in a position to deal with if it wishes.”

Mr Croft also ruled that the council should pay the applicant’s appeal costs because its reasons for refusal were “unreasonable”.