A bid to build a triple garage at a property overlooking the Tay has been knocked back by councillors – because it might block other people’s views of the river.
Resident Adam Henderson had sought permission to create a new one-and-a-half storey garage with self-contained accommodation within the upper level at a house in Tay Street in Newport-on-Tay.
But while planning officials felt the development would be acceptable and recommended approval, members of the north east Fife planning committee thought otherwise and unanimously refused consent.
Councillors argued it should be rejected in the interests of visual amenity, and to safeguard the character and appearance of the Newport-on-Tay Conservation Area.
Eighteen objections had been received from members of the public on various grounds, ranging from the impact on views to fears it may be used as an Airbnb.
However, council planners suggested these could be overlooked, with case officer Andy Taylor’s report into the application concluding it was “acceptable in terms of form, scale, layout, detailing and choice of materials”.
Nevertheless, local councillor Jonny Tepp moved refusal, adding he found it “astonishing” planners had partly relied on pictures from Google Street View because a site visit could not be carried out by officers in this instance for Covid-19 reasons.
‘They bought houses here for a reason’
Councillor David MacDiarmid agreed, and commented: “The people who buy these houses here have bought these houses for a reason, and that’s the views.
“We as an authority and planning committee can obscure people’s views forever depending on how we look at it.”
Planning service manager Alistair Hamilton stressed that preserving people’s views could not be used as a justification for refusal, and noted site visits were not allowed at this time due to Covid-19 restrictions.
But he added: “To be honest, we can gain quite a good appreciation of the situation from Google Street maps – there’s probably sufficient information there for them (planning officials) to make a decision.”
Councillor Tepp’s motion to refuse was not opposed and planning consent for the proposed development was denied.
