UKC

Allt na reigh, Glencoe : Planning Application

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 Andy Harpur 08 Jan 2022

Apologies if it's already publicised on here, I did a search beforehand. 

Allt na reigh, Glencoe. Formally home of Hamish MacInnes and holiday home of J.Savile now has a planning application with Highland council. Demolishing existing building, to be replaced with a "futuristic" dwelling.

Not sure if the link will post here, but the reference on Highland planning portal will take you to it :

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=R2TOEPIHK5400

It's also covered by the Scotsman if you search on-line.

Planning Reference : 21/05434/FUL

Expiry Date : Sat 15 Jan 2022

Standard Consultation Expiry Date : Wed 19 Jan 2022

Post edited at 23:16
 Andy Harpur 08 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

Is there a problem with this? - I can't immediately see one

My only concern is with closeness to the road but that's more a problem for anyone living there than for people driving past and anyway, that's largely dictated by the geography of the site and the existing buildings.

Also the 3 "visuals" links didn't work for me but they're available via the "43 documents" link from your link to the planning portal.

In reply to Andy Harpur:

My thoughts are to leave it as it as or totally remove it and return it to nature, etc. 

In reply to FactorXXX:

I can't help feeling it would be better to get rid of it altogether. Not because of its tainted history but because Glencoe is a superb mountain pass, like Llanberis. This is a bit like suggesting erecting a modern building beside the Cromlech boulders.

 john arran 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

I wasn't aware of the new definition of "futuristic", which apparently now means something that looks like it was designed in the '70s.

 Tidyrack 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

Looks okay to me and surely better than having to pass the old house every time with all that has happened.

 DaveHK 09 Jan 2022
In reply to john arran:

> I wasn't aware of the new definition of "futuristic", which apparently now means something that looks like it was designed in the '70s.

That probably isn't actually brown roughcast but it certainly looks like it!

 DaveHK 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> My only concern is with closeness to the road 

Another concern for anyone living there is that idiots would continue to see it as a target for vandalism.

In reply to FactorXXX:

> My thoughts are to leave it as it as or totally remove it and return it to nature, etc. 

return it to nature might be nice but is rather unlikely where £s are involved - a bit early for cynicism but there you go 😁

In reply to john arran:

Agreed. The applicant should have employed an architect with a sensitivity to the overriding environmental heritage value of Glencoe. As a visual statement the design to me is an obscenity. Glencoe is one of the last places in Scotland for vanity projects. I also agree that site clearance is the best option given its unsavoury recent past. 

I have just read McInnes's new book and he supported the retention of the existing house as no evidence of misuse there has been found. I am pretty sure he would have objected to the proposed design i.e. he built himself a sympathetically designed log cabin near Diabeg.

Glencoe is owned by the NTS. As a life member I will be asking that they halt this proposal.

 Graeme G 09 Jan 2022
In reply to alan.rodger:

> As a visual statement the design to me is an obscenity. Glencoe is one of the last places in Scotland for vanity projects. I also agree that site clearance is the best option given its unsavoury recent past. 

Ugly as sin. I sincerely hope this gets knocked back. But I highly doubt it will. It’ll be a sad day for Glencoe if that ever gets built.

In reply to Andy Harpur:

Gosh, the photo visuals at the bootom of the 43 documents in your link are concerning:

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/8BD22D62971E2090120FDADD402002F0/pdf/21_05434_FUL-PHOTO_VISUAL_INFORMATION_1-2561716.pdf

The middle of glencoe is not the place for somoenes grand designs vanity ptoject.

going from a single storey dwelling to a tall two storey dwelling that is completely out of character. I know very little about planning but I'd be very dissapointed if that was approved

Post edited at 10:23
 Le Sapeur 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

It's a nice design, more modern than futuristic. However it is totally out of character for the middle of Glencoe and is completely unsympathetic to the local vernacular. 

In my view the site is suitable for a 1 to 1 1/2 storey building, white rendered with windows in scale with the existing building.

The plans are being proposed by a property development company.

Public comments can be made to Highland Council. 

In reply to mountain.martin:

What we/one can do is object to the planning app proposal (i.e. to Highland Council by 19th Jan.) on the grounds of "its adverse environmental impact on the character of a unique and treasured Scottish/UK/European landscape".

Also we/one can lobby the NTS to object to the planning app on the same grounds and request that they as owners of the Glen halt the proposal should it be approved.

As a member I will be asking MS to lend support and do the same.

 Andy Harpur 09 Jan 2022
In reply to alan.rodger:

I *think* that you may find that although the NTS own the glen, they don't own the land on which Ally na Reigh is built.

In reply to Andy Harpur:

Thanks for that - a pity. I have now submitted my objection to HC (as a local club chair) and requested NTS (as a life member) and MS (as a member) to do same. NTS nevertheless will carry some weight as an objector.

 Andy Harpur 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Le Sapeur:

I agree, it's a nice looking design which will give its occupants nice views of the spectacular scenery.

BUT...

Could the design have taken the immediate environment more sympathetically into account and been less visually obtrusive - definitely.

With that in mind the application should be rejected - come back again with a better proposal.

[Edit: if you compare with my initial post you'll see that I've changed my mind to some degree]

Post edited at 12:20
In reply to Andy Harpur:

All the more reason to get any objections in by 19th Jan.

 jonny taylor 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

Christ, that's an abomination.

Watch for round 2 where they submit something that's "taking into account feedback", but still inappropriate...

 AukWalk 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

Agree with others, should either be returned to nature, or a more sympathetic and traditional style of building put in its place that won't look so out of place.

The design looks like it will be a fantastic luxury second home for whichever wealthy so and so owns it, but a bit of an intrusion for everyone else that has to look at it surrounded by fantastic scenery. 

Post edited at 13:35
 felt 09 Jan 2022
In reply to john arran:

> I wasn't aware of the new definition of "futuristic", which apparently now means something that looks like it was designed in the '70s.

1970s Futurism should be called Neo-Futurism, to distinguish if from the much earlier movement called Futurism. 

 john arran 09 Jan 2022
In reply to felt:

> 1970s Futurism should be called Neo-Futurism, to distinguish if from the much earlier movement called Futurism. 

in which case this would have to be an example of Retro-Neo-Futurism! 

 felt 09 Jan 2022
In reply to john arran:

Looks more bog-standard modernism to me. Banal, dull and totally inappropropriate in the setting. 

When Rigg Beck (the Purple House) got torched in the early 2000s after Varya had moved out, the new building erected in its place was hyper-discreet, organic without being too Dove Cottagey, and not a little straight-outta-Hobbiton from the outside. Gets my thumbs up from some aspects.

https://knoxbhavan.co.uk/work/rigg-beck 

 Maggot 09 Jan 2022
In reply to felt:

> Looks more bog-standard modernism to me. Banal, dull and totally inappropropriate in the setting. 

That ^^^

That's a nice building.

Is this the same Highland Council planning department that I've read about a few times before on UKC?  You know the one, the one that passes everything put in front of them?

In reply to the thread:

This isn’t a comment on this specific proposal, more a general point about what style of building is appropriate in a place like Glencoe.

Why do we feel that the building technology of the nineteenth century is right, but that of the twentieth isn’t? There’s a case to be made that modern/modernist lightweight buildings impose less on their surroundings. Or if we’re going for nostalgia, why not turf roof and mud floors (attested in Glencoe by Dr Johnson in the late 18th century)?

In reply to rsc:

Because buildings made with natural, native materials blend in far better with their natural surroundings than modern buildings made with exotic materials. 

In reply to John Stainforth:

> Because buildings made with natural, native materials blend in far better with their natural surroundings than modern buildings made with exotic materials. 

I think most people would agree with you, though perhaps without having given the matter much thought. 

What are the natural, native materials in Glencoe? Is rhyolite a good building stone? What about the roof? Are glass windows allowed? Is steel any more exotic here than it would be anywhere?

There’s also the point that this proposal is right on a trunk road.

 I love Glencoe too, I’m just trying to work out why we don’t like buildings that look like they were built less than a hundred years ago.

 65 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Maggot:

> Is this the same Highland Council planning department that I've read about a few times before on UKC?  You know the one, the one that passes everything put in front of them?

I get the impression you believe everything you read, and I shudder to think what you read.  I sometimes have to deal with HC planning through work, they most definitely do not approve everything that's put in front of them. They are no better or worse than any other council planners.

In reply to rsc:

No-one has said anything here agin 20th century buildings just that the design proposed is disrespectful at this location. Glencoe is owned and managed by the NTS. That tells you something of the importance the nation attaches to the character of the Glen. A conservation specialist architect should have been employed here - if anyone?. A plutocrat castle in Glencoe is wrong on so many levels. There are endless other appropriate locations for this style.

In reply to alan.rodger:

I’m no fan of this proposal either but I’d say the problem is it’s height- partly because of the(traditional) pitched roof. In fact it looks as though it’s clad in stone (fake?) too, so it’s an odd bodge-up of modernist (ground floor) with a weird oversailing cottage-style upper floor. Far from being plutocratic, it looks cheaply done.

But I’m interested to know what people consider would be an acceptable style in such locations- just imitations of nineteenth century cottages?

 Graeme G 09 Jan 2022
In reply to alan.rodger:

> the importance the nation attaches to the character of the Glen.

I’d go further. It’s a globally recognised ‘brand’. The view from that end of the Glen is plastered everywhere and carries huge weight for Scottish tourism. 

 Graeme G 09 Jan 2022
In reply to rsc:

> But I’m interested to know what people consider would be an acceptable style in such locations- just imitations of nineteenth century cottages?

In this case yes. A nice wee white cottage with a red roof. See my post above.

In reply to rsc:

> But I’m interested to know what people consider would be an acceptable style in such locations- just imitations of nineteenth century cottages?

Yes I'd say so, in such an iconic wild natural location and in such public view.

Could have all sorts of fancy/modern bits inside if they want.

 Rob Parsons 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

> Land registry details:

That says 'Last purchase date - 17th March 2021.' I remember this property being sold at auction several years ago - has it since changed hands again?

With apologies for the thread drift, I have always wondered how a private house came to be allowed to be built there in the first place. Is it theoretically possible that other private houses could pop up in the same area? Who owns the land?

 Co1in H 09 Jan 2022
In reply to mountain.martin:

That last photo, the side elevation to the road is horrendous.

Just raze it to the ground and let nature take it back.

Out of interest has the flat rented/owned by Saville in Salford(?) had any "remedial work: donedoes anyone know?

 Rob Parsons 09 Jan 2022
In reply to Co1in H:

> Just raze it to the ground and let nature take it back.

The point is that somebody owns it (whether we like that, or not.)

In reply to mountain.martin and Graeme G:

Fair enough. But then why nineteenth century, not earlier? Why is white paint ok?

Sorry, I’ll stop with the annoying questions soon!

 Ramblin dave 09 Jan 2022
In reply to rsc:

> Fair enough. But then why nineteenth century, not earlier? Why is white paint ok?

Yeah, I'm not a defender of this thing as a visionary piece of architecture, but like a lot of modern architecture in the Highlands the basic colours and textures of it - blacks and browns, wood and stone - seem to blend into the scenery far better than some white-painted faux-historic cottage would.

To be honest, though, I generally just hate the idea of the Highlands having to be constantly dressed up to match the Victorian romantic image of themselves, or the idea that we need to run round two of the clearances to keep the land either side of a massive A-road "wild" enough for the tastes of tourists like me coming up from the South.

 Wilderbeest 09 Jan 2022
In reply to felt:

That’s a cracking building in a great location…I do feel a little for the owners though as it’s such a great thing to look at we always stop and gawp at it when we pass, and I’m sure everyone does the same.

Post edited at 19:28
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> …the idea of the Highlands having to be constantly dressed up to match the Victorian romantic image…

That‘a pretty much where I’m coming from.

I think our planning system, flawed though it is, is a precious bit of democracy, but I worry that there’s sometimes an apparent bias against modern design.  I’d say some the new mountain refuge buildings in the Alps show that bold design can work really well in such settings.

In reply to rsc:

> Fair enough. But then why nineteenth century, not earlier? Why is white paint ok?

I agree a white painted stone cottage is a visual intrusion.

But it is in keeping with many other cottages in the area (and the one already existing on the site) and as such does not really seem out of place and has connections with the area and the local history. Not sure when the stone cottages were first painted white? I'd probably prefer it wasn't painted and this would be less of an intrusion.

I think a fair principle in such a location is that you replace like for like unless there is a clear consensus that the new building will be an improvment to the area, not just for the owners.

I have friends who live in a terraced house in pembroke dock and the planners there are pretty specific and won't allow a change of style when they need to replace their windows. I would hope glencoe would have at least a similar level of protection.

In reply to rsc:

>  I’d say some the new mountain refuge buildings in the Alps show that bold design can work really well in such settings.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for a new, modern design in a location like this if it was a building of public benefit/use.

 Maggot 09 Jan 2022
In reply to mountain.martin:

Indeed. But it'll be some rich prick's Scottish retreat. Accidental damage insurance will be a good idea for the new owner.

In reply to mountain.martin:

> I'd have a lot more sympathy for a new, modern design in a location like this if it was a building of public benefit/use.

Me too!

 Ramblin dave 09 Jan 2022
In reply to mountain.martin:

> I think a fair principle in such a location is that you replace like for like unless there is a clear consensus that the new building will be an improvment to the area, not just for the owners.

But what is "such a location"? I mean, I just checked on Streetview and even if your entire experience of Glencoe is driving down the A82, you can only see this building for one short straight just before it, and to be honest your view at that point will probably be blocked by a campervan stuck behind a Morrisons lorry stuck behind a fuel tanker anyway. And if you're actually going up the hills like a sensible person then how much difference is a small wood / glass / stone building a mile or two away going to make to your experience of Bidean or the Aonach Eagach?

 Graeme G 09 Jan 2022
In reply to rsc:

> Fair enough. But then why nineteenth century, not earlier? Why is white paint ok?

> Sorry, I’ll stop with the annoying questions soon!

No you won’t. Why do I need to justify my answer?

FYI - cos it looks nice in photos. Does that help?

 Rob Parsons 09 Jan 2022
In reply to rsc:

> Sorry, I’ll stop with the annoying questions soon!

I think you raise an interesting question. Carry on.

In reply to Graeme G:

Why do I need to justify my answer?

You don’t, of course. I meant no offence.

> FYI - cos it looks nice in photos. Does that help?

For people thinking of sending in an objection to this scheme (which incidentally I agree is a dog’s dinner) - no.

In reply to Andy Harpur:

If they had any sense they'd council would persuade them to either remove the building entirely or put up a completely traditional whitewashed cottage, if necessary getting a tourism agency to spend some money.   

They need to think of the wider economic benefits of tourism and the view from the road is one that tourists will all see.  It is not the right place for a building to make a 'statement' or rich people's egos  - all it does is detract from the landscape.

 Graeme G 10 Jan 2022
In reply to rsc:

Grand. I agree some modern buildings are stunning. But just not there. It’s just too iconic a viewpoint.

In reply to Graeme G:

It's probably a good location to make some kind of eco-statement dwelling that blends into the hillside - a good place to show how well it can be done.

[U-turn almost completed 😁]

Post edited at 09:11
 jimtitt 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

Knock it down and put in parking for climbers yellow vans

In reply to Andy Harpur and the thread:

As Andy said, the deadline for objections is tight. For those not familiar with the process, there’s a useful guide here:

https://pos.scot/planning-objections-frequently-asked-questions/

I don’t know how Scottish planning law differs from English, but I expect objections from local people will weigh heavier than those from people like me who live 350 miles away and only get to visit a few times a year.

You can only object on valid planning grounds, and it works best if you link it to the council’s own policies.

https://www.highland.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/21199/westplan_adopted_september_2019.pdf

Fortunately in this case the council states as a priority, “Safeguard, through appropriate siting and design, areas protected or otherwise important for nature conservation or landscape qualities, in particular the Ben Nevis and Glen Coe National Scenic Area”. 
 

I don’t think there’s any chance of persuading the council that the site should be cleared. The arguments most likely to work are about the overall size of the development (it must be twice the size of the existing building) and especially its height. A full two storeys plus pitched roof is unusual in an otherwise undeveloped area of the highlands. There may be some mileage in objecting to the stuck-on stone cladding ( if that’s not just the computer graphics- I haven’t read the full proposal).

Hope this helps. Apologies for derailing the thread yesterday with aesthetic musings.

 Mike Stretford 10 Jan 2022
In reply to rsc:

> But I’m interested to know what people consider would be an acceptable style in such locations- just imitations of nineteenth century cottages?

I think something like this would be ok

https://www.haus.scot/portfolio/sanday/

especially when the wood weathers to look like 5th image down here

https://www.designhunter.co.uk/home/2016/8/3/a-scottish-architectural-road-trip

I'm involved in local politics and I'm used to hearing the well intentioned sentiments on this thread.... but this is not in public ownership and the council have to engage with the fact that this is private land with a dwelling already on it.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I think something like this would be ok

I agree!

> especially when the wood weathers to look like 5th image down here

That’s a really interesting link - thanks!

And yes, NTS may own much of the glen but they don’t own this property. And nobody owns the view.

 subtle 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I think something like this would be ok

> especially when the wood weathers to look like 5th image down here

Really? I find the weathered wood look rather sad, as tired as the coloured render that was fashionable in many inner city schemes a good few years ago.

Each to their own though  - and how do people feel about the  look of the "new" Kingshouse Hotel?

 Mike Stretford 10 Jan 2022
In reply to subtle:

Tis subjective yes! I do like them, my friend built one on Orkney and I love it.... blends in well.

In reply to rsc:

In this exceptional case I think its fair to say that someone does in fact own the view i.e. the NTS - but not of the proposed house.

 graeme jackson 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

The main argument in this topic appears to that it will spoil (or detract from) the view. That's generally not a consideration for planners up here - just about every nice view in Scotland has been spoiled by pylons or turbines.  

The only thing I don't like about the new design is the cantilevered but sticking out the front.  That huge balcony will be superb for siting a telescope (although the surrounding hills will obstruct the view somewhat)

 65 10 Jan 2022
In reply to graeme jackson:

> The main argument in this topic appears to that it will spoil (or detract from) the view. That's generally not a consideration for planners up here - just about every nice view in Scotland has been spoiled by pylons or turbines.  

Yes it generally is. Not every wind farm application is passed. We may not like the siting of many, or indeed any, but were it not for planning decisions there would be a lot more of them in places where their visual impact would be much greater.

 Moondancer 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

Apparently the property/site is owned by a company called Glencoe Cottage Ltd (based on the info in the PSAD application form on the Highland planning portal). If you look up the company on Companies House, it says it specialises in buying & selling of real estate, so I assume they're seeking to develop the site before selling it on, rather than for their own use.

In reply to Andy Harpur:

 NIMBY  NIMBY  NIMBY NIMBY  NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

And then I got to a computer  that was able to down lode the links you put on ,,,,,,,,,,,Holy Cow !

 Graeme G 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Moondancer:

> Apparently the property/site is owned by a company called Glencoe Cottage Ltd (based on the info in the PSAD application form on the Highland planning portal). If you look up the company on Companies House, it says it specialises in buying & selling of real estate, so I assume they're seeking to develop the site before selling it on, rather than for their own use.

The funny thing is, it would be a horrible place to live. The relentless noise from road traffic would be awful (IMO). Maybe ok in Hamish’s time. But not now.

 Ramblin dave 10 Jan 2022
In reply to graeme jackson:

> The main argument in this topic appears to that it will spoil (or detract from) the view. That's generally not a consideration for planners up here - just about every nice view in Scotland has been spoiled by pylons or turbines.  

Also, people seem to be acting like it's going to be plonked in the middle of the valley right in front of everyone, when actually, unless I'm missing something, it's basically only going to be visible at any sort of close distance from a hundred metres or so of the A82, and not from any of the carparks or laybys where people actually stop to look at the view.

I don't think scenic impact should be ignored in this sort of case, but I honestly can't imagine the proposed building actually having any noticeable impact on my appreciation of Glencoe unless I'd decided in advance that I was going to get annoyed by it.

As mentioned above, I also hate the idea that "scenic impact" should be determined by "does it fit with my vision of the highlands as a 19th century theme-park" and not "does it blend in reasonably unobtrusively with the scenery."

Post edited at 16:24
 Siward 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I would have thought anybody with some vision would be thinking semi buried, grass roof, carbon neutral etc, as a sort of showpiece. Not just a Barratt home plonked there... 

 Ramblin dave 10 Jan 2022
In reply to Siward:

Maybe, yeah. I'm not saying that I love it or that it's the standard that all such buildings should aspire to, I just think the amount of anger that some people seem to have worked up about it is somewhat out of proportion to its actual impact.

In reply to graeme jackson:

> That huge balcony will be superb for siting a telescope (although the surrounding hills will obstruct the view somewhat)

Except for the car headlights on super-bright LED full beam sweeping past

 colinakmc 11 Jan 2022
In reply to Andy Harpur:

You only get one chance at this. What’s proposed is ostentatious and not appropriately scaled for its position at the head of the glen; once it’s done it’ll alter the character of the place and make it easier for another wealthy chancer to change something else. 
 

I’ll be objecting.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...