Mr Joe Lafferty: Erection of Dwellinghouse and Formation of Vehicular Access: Garden Ground of 47 Campbell Street, Helensburgh (Ref: 23/02259/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 19 June 2024
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 19 June 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
1 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 23/02259/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Joe Lafferty Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Garden Ground Of 47 Campbell Street, Helensburgh Argyll And Bute DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Subdivision of the residential curtilage of a dwellinghouse to create a separate plot for residential development. • Erection of a single-storey dwellinghouses. • Formation of new private driveway • Associated alterations to a boundary wall including removal of a section of stone wall to form a gateway; and formation of gate piers; and, installation of gates. • Erection of new post and wire fence to demarcate new boundary between the ‘donor’ property, no. 47 Campbell St. and the curtilage of the proposed new house. • Formation of hard surfaced parking and turning area; and paved pathway/terrace around part of the proposed house. (ii) Other specified operations • Removal of trees and shrub planting. • New landscape planting (B) RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be approved subject to conditions as set out within this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS:
Page 2
2 A r e a R o a d s : Area Roads 21.12.2023: Acknowledges that there has been a previous application for planning permission for a house in this location. No objections subject to conditions requiring that the proposed new access junction be designed and implemented in accordance with Roads Authority standards, including but not exclusively, visibility splays; maximum gradients; surfacing etc. and, provision of off-street parking and turning in accordance with approved Council standards. 08.04.2024: The Area Roads Engineer re-assessed the proposal with regard to a revised design, considered to comprise non-material amendments. It is not considered that the revised design raises any new transport, access and parking issues (in relation to the original drawings); however, the Roads Engineer has taken the opportunity to add to the recommended planning condition in respect of any gate being inward- opening and set back a minimum of 6.0 metres from the edge of the carriageway. H e l e n s b u r g h C o m m u n i t y C o u n c i l ( H C C ) : Helensburgh Community Council 23.02.2024: Support the proposal for erection of a new house on this site in principle. However, having assessed the proposed development with regard to its Helensburgh Design Statement (HDS) the Community Council objects on grounds of poor design quality, with particular regard to impact the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 15.04.2024: HCC considers that the current application represents a cheaper and inferior quality of design in comparison to the earlier application. HCC supports determination of this application at a Public Hearing. Objection 1 – Building Design: It’s considered that the proposed house design is “ordinary in the extreme” and would clash with the existing Edwardian villa(s) to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area contrary to policies LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 17 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015; and the provisions of the HES guidance on Managing Change in the Historic Environment. A preference is expressed for an alternative siting of any proposed building against the eastern site boundary wall. Objection 2 – Setting on Site: Proposed siting against western boundary will appear incongruous in relation to the ‘donor’ villa. Facing east will deprive the proposed house and much of the garden of light, except early in the mornings. Objection 3 – Access HHC fully supports the objections from neighbours with regard to the proposed access onto Barclay Drive on the following grounds: • Barclay Drive is quiet residential street much used by pedestrians and children: • It will damage the visual integrity of the distinctive stone boundary wall and its existing grass verge: and, • It requires removal of several mature trees and heavy pruning of several trees in a neighbours garden.
Page 3
3 S c o t t i s h W a t e r : Scottish Water 02.04.2024: No objection. (It should be noted that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced.) Currently, there is sufficient service infrastructure capacity in relation to Water (supply) and Waste Water (drainage); however, further investigations may be required once a formal application by the applicant/developer has been submitted to Scottish Water. Scottish will not accept any surface water drainage connection into their combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where this may be allowed on Brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the applicant/developer. 08.04.2024: No changes to the original consultation response (above) are required with regard to the non-material amendments to the original design/layout. (D) HISTORY: 22/00996/PP - Erection of dwellinghouse at Garden Ground Of 47 Campbell Street, Helensburgh, Argyll And Bute G84 9QW Refused – 24.11.2022 (E) PUBLICITY: Site Notice - Conservation Area – Expired 09.01.2024 Listed Building/Conservation Advert - Expired 04.01.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 22 contributions have been received. Four of these raise planning matters that require to be taken into account but do not specifically object to the proposed development. Sixteen objections have been submitted. Representations: • Fiona Miller - 66 Campbell Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9QW • Steve McGlynn - 10 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Amanda McGlynn - 10 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Julie Fraser - No Address Provided Objections: • Emma Mason - 21 Queen Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9QL
Page 4
4 • Tom Stewart - 24A Queen Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9LG • Deborah Dennett - 64 Campbell Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9QW • Elizabeth Whitney - 6 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • David Whitney - 6 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Geoffrey Holliman - 28 Queen St Helensburgh G84 9QL • Alison Holliman - 28 Queen St Helensburgh G84 9QL • Peter Holmes - 2 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Ruth Holmes - 2 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Neil Wightwick - 4 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Karin Gow - 57 Campbell Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9QW • Fiona Baker - Hillcroft Station Road Rhu Helensburgh Argyll and Bute G84 8LW • Fiona Howard - Ground Floor Flat Ravenswood Shore Road Cove Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 0LR • T. Wightwick - No Address Provided • R.A. Murray - 8 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD • Wendy Hamilton - 8 Barclay Drive Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9RD Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Impact on the Conservation Area • The proposed development is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area, with reference to the Helensburgh Conservation Area Appraisal 2008, and the development will not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to the provisions of NPF 4 and LDP 2 policy. • The proposed access will result in the loss of a section of historic boundary wall to the detriment of the character and appearance of the conservation area and create an inappropriate precedent. • Loss of mature and specimen trees and garden shrubs that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Comment: Potential impact upon the character and appearance of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area is assessed in detail within this report and its appendices (below) having regard to all material planning considerations including relevant NPF 4 and LDP 2 policies; the Helensburgh Conservation Area Appraisal; third party representations; and the application submission. Impact on the Setting of Nearby Listed Buildings • Proposed development will be detrimental to the setting of nearby listed buildings, specifically no. 28 Queen Street.
Page 5
5 Comment: No. 28 Queen Street is not a listed building. The closest listed building to the site is “Deanston”, a Category C listed building at no. 32 Queens Street, some 70 metres to the west of the application site with two intervening properties. The proposed building will not impact upon the immediate setting of the listed building. In relation to the wider setting, it is considered that, by reason of the modest scale of the proposal; its relatively unobtrusive siting within a clearly separate curtilage demarcated by high walls; and the dense, natural screening within the area, that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the wider setting of nearby listed buildings. It is also noted, that several other villas on the southern side of Barclay Drive have structures within their rear gardens, including “Deanston”. Impact on Visual Amenity and Townscape Character • Siting, scale, design, material finishes and footprint of proposed development relative to site area will result in over-development out of keeping with and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. Comment: Officers are satisfied that the reduced scale of development, both in terms of footprint area and height (compared to the previously refused scheme) has a relatively low density that reflects the density of the existing pattern of built development. The siting is to be sited towards the south west corner of the site, set back from the site boundaries with adjacent public roads; and in this respect it is considered that the spacious character of the site can be adequately protected. Additional boundary planting will help the new development to be assimilated within its wider setting. Access • Barclay Drive does not have design capacity to accommodate the intensification of traffic without detriment to road safety. Comment: Barclay Drive is a two-way residential through street that serves nine houses between Campbell Street and Suffolk Street. The level of intensification of traffic generated by one additional house is not considered to be significant in relation to the existing usage and the design capacity of this road. The existing public road access regime (including Barclay Drive) is considered to have adequate design capacity to accommodate the low level of intensification of traffic/pedestrian generated by one additional house without detriment to roads safety, the flow of traffic or detriment to the character of the area or local amenity. This is consistent with the consultation response from the Roads Authority. • An alternative access onto Campbell Street is put forward as a better alternative to the proposed access onto Barclay Drive. • One objector submits that the Roads Authority assess and comment on a different access point (onto Campbell Street) in relation to the proposed access onto Barclay Drive. Comment: The planning authority must assess the proposed development as applied for on the application forms, drawings and supporting information; regardless of alternative possibilities. Likewise, the Local Roads Authority must also assess the proposal on the basis of
Page 6
6 the proposed development as detailed in the planning application submission, and not to assess it relative to alternative proposals that do not form part of the application. Loss of Trees • The development will have result in the loss of mature garden trees and natural landscape features which will have a detrimental impact on the conservation area. Comment: It is acknowledged that trees will be lost as a direct result of the proposed built development. It is not considered that the tree specimens proposed to be felled, by reason of species or amenity value, would warrant refusal of this application. It is considered that proposed new tree planting, particularly along the northern and eastern site boundaries will adequately mitigate against the impacts of tree loss within the centre of the site, and that the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. Residential Amenities • Loss of privacy to occupiers of nearby houses, specifically no. 28 Queen Street by reason of overlooking. • Loss of daylight and natural light to existing nearby propertied by reason of ‘overshadowing.’ Comment: Having regard to the siting, orientation, scale and height of the proposed house in relation to nearby properties, officers are satisfied that the new building will not result in material loss of natural day-light/sunlight to the extent that would impact residential amenity. The internal layout for the proposed house places the majority of window openings onto the principal (east facing) elevation. The rear (west) elevation has a glazed (main entrance) door with fixed side lights giving access to a lobby; and a small secondary window to the kitchen/dining area facing towards the shared boundary wall with no. 28 Queen Street at a distance of some 7.62 metres. On the basis that these are not principal windows to habitable rooms; they are at ground floor level; and that there will be a car parking courtyard, stone boundary wall and existing natural planting screen between the windows and the rear private open amenity space for no. 28 Queen Street, officers are satisfied that there will not be a material detrimental impact on the amenities that the occupiers of 28 Queen Street could reasonably expect to have by reason of loss of privacy/overlooking of the rear garden. The proposed house is sufficiently far away from existing houses on the other sides of Campbell Street and Barclay Drive that these properties will not suffer any material loss of amenity. Houses, facing one another at these kinds of distances across a public road are not uncommon. • Resultant intensification of traffic using Barclay Drive will have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of existing houses on Barclay Drive. Comment: The issue of roads safety is assessed elsewhere. This objection relates to impact on “residential amenity” by reason of increase traffic. Whilst the potential impacts are not specified, officers have assessed the proposed development and its likely resultant traffic
Page 7
7 generation with regard to general disturbance by reason of increased number of traffic movement, noise, vibration etc. It is not considered that the intensification of traffic using Barclay Drive, generated by one additional dwellinghouse will be significant enough to have a material impact upon the residential amenities of existing residents on Barclay Drive. Infrastructure / Surface Water Drainage • The previous application ref: was refused by the planning authority on the basis that inadequate detail had been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development can be adequately serviced in terms of surface water drainage infrastructure (having regard to the Scottish Water consultation response.) No additional detail has been submitted in support of the current application and as such, it cannot be supported. Comment: It is acknowledged that this was a reason for refusal in terms of the previous application and that the current application is not at all clear in terms of how surface water will be dealt with, having regard to the consultation response from Scottish Water. However, unlike the previously refused application officers consider that surface water drainage is now the only remaining matter outstanding, and that it would not justify a refusal on its own when officers are otherwise supportive of the proposal and consider that it would be appropriate to secure a suitable surface water drainage scheme by suspensive planning condition in these circumstances. . Miscellaneous / General/ Procedural • The Design and Access Statement is out-dated with reference to the latest design. It also lacks a dimensioned drawing and includes a photograph that may be misleading in that it doesn’t show no. 28 Queen Street or the existing houses on the north side of Barclay drive. The Design Statement does not address loss of privacy to the occupiers of no. 28 Queen Street by reason of overlooking. Comment: It is acknowledged that the Design and Access Statement has been out-dated to the extent that the latest revised design is different from both Options 1 and 2 shown in the Design Statement. The revised siting is similar in principle to Option 2, albeit that the current layout shows the house ‘pushed back’ from the eastern boundary by some 2 metres; there is no projecting wing on the principal elevation; and the roof forms are gabled rather than hipped. It is considered that the issues discussed in the original Design Statement still apply to the current revised design. As such, officers consider that the overall package of information currently available is sufficient to allow a full and thorough assessment related to design. There is no requirement for a Design Statement to provide measured or scaled drawings. The Design Statement should be considered in conjunction with the application drawings. Notwithstanding that the impact upon the residential amenities of no. 28 Queen Street are not addressed within the Design and Access Statement, officers are satisfied that the complete application submission, including the drawings provides a sufficient level of information to enable a full assessment of this issue. This matter was fully assessed during physical site inspections.
Page 8
8 • The Tree Survey submitted in support of the application is not to a sufficient standard, lacks clarity and is ‘open to question.’ Comment: - Officers do not disagree that the tree impact information submitted is of a very basic quality with a lack of precision. However, officers consider on balance that the submission, in conjunction with the case officer’s site assessment, provides adequate information to allow a full assessment of impact on trees. Identification of all trees; protection measures during construction; and replacement tree planting can be achieved by means of planning condition. • The Planning Authority failed to carry out neighbour consultation and/or advertisement process appropriately and this has prejudiced the opportunity for third parties to consider and submit representations. Comment: The planning authority does not accept this claim. Officers can confirm that all required neighbour consultation and advertisement has been carried out in full accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013, and as such, all interested parties have been allowed adequate time to contribute. • The Helensburgh Conservation Area Appraisal is a material consideration. Comment: Agreed. • Relevant NPF 4 policy and LDP 2 policies are listed. Comment: Agreed. • Several safeguarding conditions are suggested should planning permission be approved. Comment: - Officers have given due consideration to planning conditions as part of this assessment, having regard to all material considerations including third party/neighbour representations; legislation; and Government guidance on the use of planning conditions. The officers recommended conditions are set out as part of the recommendation below. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: The main issues covered in the Design Statement are summarised as follows: ☒Yes ☐No
Page 9
9 • Proposal is for a single storey 3-bedroom house with a gross floor area of 156 sq metres. • Sets out historical context • Refers to planning history i.e. Refusal of planning permission in respect of planning application ref. 22/00966/PP • 2 optional revised designs are put forward and analysed following discussion with planning officers. • Option 1 shows a single-storey linear building running (approximately) N – S abutting the existing boundary wall that demarcates the eastern side of the site of the application site with Campbell Street to respond to precedent buildings in the local area. It has gabled end elevations and a small dormer addition facing Campbell Street. The Statement considers that this siting could be successful, it would have a “greater than desired” impact on the presentation of trees behind the boundary wall, which is an important contributing element to the character of the conservation area. • Option 2 proposes a single-storey building of similar scale with the linear form on a roughly N-S axis, but with the principal volume sited centrally within the site, with a small additive ‘wing’ projecting forward from the east-facing principal elevation towards Campbell Street. The shallow pitched roofs have hipped ends (to better relate to the villa). • Both options proposed a new access junction from Barclay Drive to the north of the site. • Option 2 is considered the favourable siting option in that it is away from significant trees in the garden which are primarily located towards the boundaries. • Proposed materials are a mix of natural stone and render with a natural slate roof to respect the character of the existing villa. Window openings and timber frames will be traditional proportions. • Access is onto Campbell Street which is submitted as being the less significant frontage. • Design to meet or exceed the thermal and carbon reduction requirements of the current building standards by using low energy heating systems. • Scale, massing and form of the revised proposal, better responds to the character of the area and relates to the materiality of the conservation area, and addresses the concerns with the previous application proposal. • The house can be read as being typical of outhouse development common to the grounds of many larger villas.
Page 10
10 (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Tree Survey Statement (05/12/2024) – by Stemma Tree Care • A covering e-mail from Stemma Tree Care advises that the majority of trees on the application site are broadleaf species with none being overly mature. No TPO tags could be seen or any wildlife habitats. There is a lot of smaller shrubbery and small bits of vegetation that weren’t needed to be listed. • The survey comprises a table as follows: • 5 no. multi-stemmed Alder - approx. 25-30 high – Healthy; • 4 no. Silver Birch – approx. 30-40 feet high – 1 no. in decline; • 2 no. Ash – approx. 10-15 feet high – self- seeded saplings; • 2 no. White Willow – approx. 15 feet high – Healthy • 2 no. Yew – approx. 15 feet high – Healthy • 1 no. Portuguese Laurel approx. 15 feet high – Healthy; and, • 1 no. Rhododendron – approx. 5 feet high – Healthy. • Drawing no. 2954/101 revision B – “Existing Site Topographic Survey Retained & removed trees” • This drawing shows the stem/trunks of 3 number trees to be removed as follows: • 2 no. Alder; and, • 1 no. Willow ☒Yes ☐No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No
Page 11
11 (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision
Page 12
12 Sustainable Communities Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • Appraisal of Helensburgh Conservation Areas - 2008 • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No This is a local application. It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with all relevant provisions of NPF 4 and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2; and that the material land-use planning issues arising are not unduly complex. As such it is not considered that a Hearing will add value to the determination process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area • Trees with a conservation area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area
Page 13
13 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☒Yes ☐No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☒Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A Note – The proposed site plan appears to show new trees shaded dark red, however this is indicative in nature, and whereas the applicant is willing to plant new and replacement trees, it is recommended that a planning condition is required in order to get further details for assessment and to formalise this procedure. (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The application is for a single 3-bed dwelling in the private rear garden of a large, detached 2 storey sandstone villa (no.47 Campbell Street) within Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area.
Page 14
14 A previous application for a single dwelling on the identical site was refused. This is a resubmission and re-design of the proposed house. The house is located within the established settlement area of Helensburgh wherein there is support for infill residential development in principle by both NPF4 and LDP2 Policies. The key issues are considered to be: • Proposed layout and design in relation to impact on visual amenities and the character and appearance of conservation area including the setting of the existing house, impact on trees and removal of a section the rear boundary wall adjacent to Barclay Drive. • Impact on general residential amenity. • Proposed new private access, • Other issues include waste and drainage infrastructure. The proposal is a 3-bed house with L shaped plan form, with gable end roof. The design detailing includes skews to the gable ends, centrally located chimney and timber framed sash in case design windows and natural slate roof. The walls are to be buff colour stone cladding. The scale of the proposed building has been significantly reduced such that there is now a clear hierarchical relationship between the original villa and the proposed new built form. The massing has also been significantly simplified (in relation to the refused design) to create a more modest, or less demonstrative architectural language. The qualities of the design detailing and materials are considered critical to the ‘success’ of the proposed building in this instance. As such, it is recommended that the details and materials be controlled by means of a planning condition By reason of the scale and siting of the proposed development, relative to existing development, officers are satisfied that there will be no loss of amenity by reason of overshadowing or loss of privacy by reason of overlooking. In terms of trees, the proposal results in the loss of 3 number trees– 2no. Alder and 1no. Willow. It is generally considered that the trees and shrubs in the garden make a significant contribution to the visual amenity and character of the conservation area but the garden is somewhat neglected and unmanaged. It is considered that the loss of these particular individual trees does not affect the overall amenity value of the wider tree groups and individual trees within this garden area. A planning condition is recommended in relation to tree protection and for the planting of suitable species of new trees along the northern and eastern site boundaries. In terms of the historic environment, a full assessment is made in the Appendix of the settlement character and acknowledging other incremental infill development in the area. The ‘donor’ house, no 47 is not a listed building and it is considered that the proposal given its scale and siting will not adversely affect the setting of the villa or the qualifying features for conservation area designation. There will be the loss of part of the stone wall to accommodate the access but this is considered a very minor impact in terms of the overall scheme and would not warrant refusal as the integrity of the wall is retained. Whilst it is pointed out that there are no other vehicular openings within this particular stretch of stone boundary wall, vehicle access gates within rear stone boundary walls to large villas is not an uncommon feature elsewhere within the wider conservation area.
Page 15
15 Finally, in terms of access, there has been significant concern from neighbours, however it is not considered that one additional house will materially intensify traffic using Barclay Drive. The area roads officer is satisfied with the proposed access in terms of visibility. In conclusion the revised design and siting is considered to be well-thought through and the proposed infill development will provide a sustainable form of residential development in accordance with the settlement strategy; preserve local visual amenity and the character and appearance of the conservation area; provide satisfactory access and off-street parking; and provide appropriate service infrastructure. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: It is considered that the proposed development would result in a new dwellinghouse, sustainably located within an existing homogenous residential area with good active travel options and convenient access to existing service and community facilities including public transport networks, shopping, services, education, healthcare, leisure etc. As such, the proposal is consistent with NPF 4 the Local Development Plan 2 Spatial Strategy. In relation to planning history, officers consider that the proposed layout and design makes substantial changes in relation to the previously refused proposal (ref: 22/00996/PP) that satisfactorily address the reasons for refusal in relation to the earlier application. By reason of unobtrusive and appropriate siting, low density, modest scale, simple but traditional massing strategy and traditional external material finishes, it is considered that the proposed building will respect the setting of the ‘donor’ house (no. 47 Campbell Street); reflect the local pattern and character of built development; and preserve the special qualities of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. It is considered that the loss of the particular trees specified will not materially impact the character and appearance of the conservation area, or biodiversity/habitat potential, subject to planting of new and replacement trees along the site boundaries. The application demonstrates that the development can be served by a new private vehicular access off of the public road network without detriment to road safety; and by adequate off-street parking and turning in accordance with the Council’s adopted parking standards. The application also demonstrates that the property can be serviced by an appropriate standard of service infrastructure, with the exception of surface water drainage. It is considered that this matter can be satisfactorily safeguarded by means of a planning condition requiring the submission and approval of further details prior to the commencement of any development. The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with all relevant provisions of NPF 4, the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and all other relevant guidance; and the application should therefore be supported in the absence of any material planning matters that would warrant departure from these provisions.
Page 16
16 (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N / A Not applicable. It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with all relevant provisions of the Local development Plan. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 6/6/24 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 6/6/24 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 17
17 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/02259/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 23rd November.2023, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 2954/100 Revision A 28.11.2023 Existing Site Topography showing Retained and Removed Trees 2954/101 Revision B 12.02.2024 Elevations, Site Plan, Floor Plana and Section 2954/110 Revision A 07.03.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Timescale to be Agreed for Completion No development shall commence until details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include a phasing scheme for the implementation of the development in stages and shall include a plan differentiating each distinct phase of the development and a schedule detailing the sequence in which development is to be implemented. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale and phasing scheme unless an alternative timescale or an amendment to the agreed sequence/timing of development is subsequently agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is implemented on a progressive basis having regard to infrastructure and servicing requirements and in order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 3. PP - Junction with public road: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing 08/002B with the exception of the width of the driveway which is specified below; and in accordance with the following requirements:
Page 18
18 (i) visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 24 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access measured from the rear of the grass verge/line of the front face of the existing boundary wall; (ii) a pedestrian visibility splay of 2.4 metres to point X by 2.4 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access; (iii) minimum driveway access width of 3.7 metres for the first 10 metres; (iv) the first 5.0 metres of the access shall be surfaced with a bound material, such as bitumen macadam or concrete, or any alternative material that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the road authority, prior to the final wearing surface being laid. (v) the proposed private access shall be graded, where possible, and designed to incorporate surface water run-off from the access that drains within the application site in order to prevent water and debris run-off onto the public road. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 4. PP - Parking and Turning As Shown The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans unless an alternative layout for parking and turning is approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Area Roads prior to the commencement of development. The approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 5. PP - Electric Vehicle Charging – Residential with off street parking Prior to the commencement of the development (or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), a scheme detailing the provision of a minimum 7kw electric vehicle charging point shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Where charging cannot be provided then the appropriate ducting to future proof the property must be installed. The approved charging point, or where relevant, the approved cable ducting shall be installed in full prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority Reason: to comply with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging. 6. PP – Submission of Details / Samples
Page 19
19 Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details and/or material samples, where specified (below) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details/samples shall include the following: (i) samples of the natural stone to be used in the development and written details of the size and coursing and, means of pointing of all stone work: (ii) manufacturers specifications for the natural roof slates and all rainwater goods: (iii) details of the surface finish/colour for the fascias and window/door frames: and, (iv) details of the coping for the skews, unless this is proposed to be natural stone subject to the provisions of 4 (i) above: (v) details for the hard surfacing of the parking/turning area and paving for paths and terraces. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved specifications or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its historic context and to ensure that the proposed development will preserve enhance or support the character and appearance of the conservation area. 7. PP – Submission of Further Details for the Proposed Gateway/Gate Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the proposed new gateway, including the new gate piers, and the proposed gates are submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings, to preserve the character and integrity of this historic stone boundary wall and to ensure that the development preserves, or where possible enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area. 8. PP – Tree Retention and Protection No development shall commence until a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of trees during construction has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise: (i) Details of all trees to be removed and the location and canopy spread of trees to be retained as part of the development; (ii) A programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works which shall include fencing at least one metre beyond the canopy spread of each tree in accordance with BS 5837:2012 “Trees in Relation to Construction”. Tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of construction works in accordance with the duly approved scheme. No trees shall be lopped, topped or felled other than in accordance with the details of the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Page 20
20 Reason: In order to retain trees as part of the development in the interests of preserving/enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area and the amenity and nature conservation. 9. PP – Full Landscaping Scheme No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: Amended March 2023 to include additional biodiversity element for NPF4 condition 3C (i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; (ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; (iii) Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; (iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; (v) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development; (vi) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area and contributing to biodiversity. 10. PP – Submission of Finished Floor Levels No development shall commence until details of the proposed finished ground floor level of the development relative to an identifiable fixed datum located outwith the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to secure an acceptable relationship between the development and its surroundings. 11. PP – Surface Water Drainage – Further detail required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the intended means of surface water drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Page 21
21 The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the development that it is intended to serve and shall be operational prior to the occupation of the development and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 12. PP – Restriction of Engineering/Construction Activity by Time Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no engineering and/or construction activity, including the unloading of vehicles shall be take place on the site outwith the hours of 08:00 till 18:00 on weekdays; 09:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays. No engineering and/or construction activity shall be carried out at any time during Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area. 13. PP – Construction Management Plan - Protection of Grass Verges Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, no development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Management Plan should clearly indicate all grass verges on the west side of Campbell Street and the south side of Barclay Drive adjacent to the application site and provide details of how these grass verges (with the exception of the proposed private access as identified on the approved drawings), are to be protected from construction-related damage including, but not exclusively to vehicular movements; storage of spoil and/or materials. Thereafter, the construction phase shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved plan and the grass verges adjacent to the application site, with the exception of the private driveway identified on the approved drawings, retained in their present condition in perpetuity. In the event of any accidental damage to the aforesaid grass verges to Campbell Street and/or Barclay Drive, the applicant/developer shall re-instate the grass and soil to the condition of the verges prior to commencement of development. Reason: In order to retain the grass verges in the interests of preserving local visual amenity and the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.
Page 22
22 ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • With regard to the provisions of condition 9. – “PP – Surface Water Drainage – Further detail required” the applicant/developer should be fully aware of the consultation response by Scottish Water which is available for inspection on the Council’s web site. In particular, it should be noted that Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system for reasons of sustainability and to protect existing customers from flooding. In limited exceptional circumstances, this may be allowed, however this will require significant justification from the applicant/developer. It is therefore, highly likely that a private surface water drainage scheme that drains within the application site will be required. The details of any details will be expected to comply with SuDS and will be considered by the planning authority’s Flood Risk Manager as required.
Page 23
23 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/02259/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. NPF 4 Policy 1 requires significant weight to be given to the global climate and nature crises when considering all development; and requires that LDPs address the global climate emergency and nature crises by ensuring that the Spatial Strategy will reduce emissions and promote nature recovery and restoration. 1.2. NPF 4 Policy 02 requires the LDP Spatial Strategy to help to guide development to sustainable locations, based on an understanding of the impact of development on greenhouse gas emissions. 1.3. NPF 4 Policy 09 supports the sustainable reuse of “brownfield land”, including vacant and derelict land and buildings. Whilst the garden ground forms part of the existing planning unit, i.e the existing dwellinghouse, it is not clearly vacant nor derelict although it does appear to be in a somewhat neglected condition. However, neither can the garden area be strictly considered as a “greenfield” site. Officers’ therefore consider that this land can be assessed as a ‘brownfield site’ for the purposes of assessing it against NPF 4 Policy 09 as it is located within a previously developed area. 1.4. NPF 4 Policy 15 requires development to contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods, by considering the settlement pattern and levels and quality of interconnectivity with the surrounding area, including access to sustainable transport options; employment; shopping; healthcare; education; child care; and general recreational/community infrastructure. 1.5. Local Development Plan 2 Policy 01 normally supports development proposals within Settlement Areas as defined on the LDP 2 Proposals Map where, amongst other considerations, it is: • the redevelopment of a brownfield site OR acceptable in relation to the overall land supply for the proposed use; • compatible with surrounding land uses; • appropriate scale and fit for the settlement; • respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and where it • complies with all relevant LDP 2 policies. Assessment 1.6. The application site is located within the Main Settlement of Helensburgh as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted February 2024.) It comprises an area of private open amenity space to the rear of an existing large house located within an established residential area. 1.7. The proposed use i.e a single dwellinghouse is compatible with regard to its location within an established homogenous residential area.
Page 24
24 1.8. Additionally, in terms of scale, a single residential unit is appropriate in relation to the nature and scale of Helensburgh as a Main Town. 1.9. The detailed assessment that follows, demonstrates to the satisfaction of planning officers that the proposed development will preserve the character and appearance of the townscape in terms of use, density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. 1.10. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of NPF 4 and the Settlement/Spatial Strategy set out in the LDP 2 Policy 01. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development Site and its Surroundings 2.1. The application site is identical in all material respects to the application site for the previous application ref: 22/00996/PP. There has been no objections to the officers‘ assessment of the site (and its surroundings) as set out in the Report of Handling in relation to that previous application. As such it is reproduced below as an uncontested and accurate site analysis that, in the absence of any material change in site circumstances, is equally applicable to this application. 2.2. “The application site comprises the majority of the private rear garden to the rear (north) of a large, detached 2-storey sandstone villa dating from circa late 19th century. Surrounding land uses are residential. The site lies within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. 2.3. The existing villa at 47 Campbell Street forms the easternmost of five large, traditional villas that form a planned townscape block that addresses Queen St. to the south, and bounded by Suffolk St. to the west, Campbell St. to the east, and by the swept curve of Barclay Drive to the north. Built development to the east, south and west of this identified townscape block is also within the designated Helensburgh Upper Conservation Area. The development pattern to the west, south and east is generally very similar in terms of being a 19th century planned street layout originally comprising mainly large detached villas set in spacious and maturely landscaped grounds predominantly facing southwards towards the water (Clyde estuary). 2.4. Some incremental infill development has taken place within the wider conservation area during the 20th Century, notably including the erection of a linear row of 6 no. houses of mid-late 20th Century design fronting onto the eastern side of Campbell Street, from the rear of no. 26 Campbell Street to the south up the hill to the railway line to the north. These houses are mostly of single storey bungalow design with the exception of one two-storey house. 2.5. The boundary of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area in this area runs along the northern side of Barclay Drive immediately to the north of 47 Campbell St. and the current application site. The boundary between the five villas south of Barclay Drive between Suffolk St. and Campbell St, is defined by an historic high stone wall, which as local residents have pointed out, is largely ‘unbroken’ with the exception of 3 no. pedestrian gates. The crescent of Barclay Drive would historically have formed the northern edge of classically planned Victorian expansion to Helensburgh in this area. 2.6. The land to the north of Barclay Drive and east of Campbell Street (north of its junction with Barclay Drive) lies outside of the Upper Helensburgh conservation area. This relatively large area, bounded to the north by the railway line has since been
Page 25
25 comprehensively developed with street layout, development pattern, densities, scale and house design typical of mid-late 20th century housing estate development. This period of development, where it fronts into (sic) the northern side of Barclay Drive, is characterised by attractive but relatively modestly scaled bungalows or 1 ½ storey design within more compact curtilages with a generally regular ‘building line’ relative to the curve of Barclay Drive. Some of these houses have an eaves height and roof form typical of a single-storey bungalow but with accommodation within the roof volume, sometimes with dormer additions – conventionally referred to as 1 ½ storey design. 2.7. No. 47 Campbell Street, as described above, is the easternmost of a ‘block’ of five villas constructed in the late 19th century. It is a two storey, cream sandstone villa of imposing scale set back from the Queen Street frontage behind a large front garden. The boundary with Queen St. is demarcated by a low stone retaining wall augmented by a continuous hedgerow, with a group of mature specimen trees immediately behind. The principal, formal elevation of the villa faces southwards over this maturely landscaped garden setting towards the Clyde and Gareloch, typical of the prevalent historic pattern of built development within the extensive conservation area. 2.8. The principal formal access to the villa is off of Campbell Street just to the north of its junction with Queen Street. The existing property is bounded to the east by Campbell Street, which is demarcated by a low stone retaining wall and attractive landscape planting adjacent to the front garden northwards up to a second, more informal gated access that traditionally would have given ‘service’ access from Campbell Street to the rear of the villa. Beyond these gates, the boundary of the rear private curtilage with Campbell Street is formed by an original stone boundary wall approximately 1.8 metres high. This stone wall continues around the corner of Campbell Street to form the form the rear (northern) boundary of the property with Barclay Drive. The property is bounded to the west by another detached villa of very similar age, scale, siting, form, design and (cream sandstone) materiality to no. 47 Campbell St. 2.9. Number 47 Campbell Street is not a listed building. The closest listed building to it, some 65 metres distant, is a category C listed dwellinghouse. Number 32 Queen Street is 3 houses to the west of no. 47 Campbell Street, within the same townscape ‘block.’ 2.10. The rear private curtilage to no. 47 Campbell Street measures approximately 0.1136 ha. The application submission states that the application site comprises 950m2 (some 84%) of this existing rear curtilage to no. 47 Campbell Street. The southern boundary of the application site will adjoin the remaining curtilage of the original villa at 47 Campbell Street, approximately 10.86 metres to the north of the rear wall of the existing villa. The application site is bounded to the west by a residential property, no. 28 Queen Street and to the north and east by Barclay Drive and Campbell Street respectively. 2.11. The rear garden to no. 47 Campbell Street is relatively level and has an open lawn area at its southern part adjacent to the rear of the existing villa. The northern part of the application site is characterised by a significant number of trees growing at fairly close intervals as well as some large shrubs.” Proposed Development 2.12. The proposed development has been revised in relation to the design proposed in respect of planning application ref: 22/00996/PP. The proposed development subject of the current application is summarised as follows: 2.13. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey 3-bedroom house within the rear garden area to the north of a large, imposing stone villa (no. 47 Campbell Street).
Page 26
26 2.14. The scale of the proposed building is relatively modest with a total building footprint area of approximately 129 sq.m, in an ‘L’ shaped plan form. The heights to eaves and ridge level are 3.58 metres and 5.14 metres respectively above existing ground level at the point of the lowest ground level (i.e towards the south east corner of the house plan). 2.15. The massing comprises a principal volume some 16.4m long by 6.4m deep with a relatively shallow pitched roof and gable ends with skews. The ridge of the roof will run roughly north to south, parallel with the alignment of Campbell Street and there is a chimney stack at the southern end. This principal volumetric form contains an open-plan living/dining kitchen space, a family bathroom, hallway and two bedrooms. A second, smaller pitched roof volume extends out from the rear of the main form and terminates in a gable end elevation facing west towards the boundary with no. 28 Queen Street. The ridge of the roof over the rear ’additive form’ runs at right angles to that of the main volume. The level of the ridge of the roof over the rear ‘addition’ steps down below the height of the ridge for the roof over the larger, principal form. This rear ‘wing’ contains a utility room, lobby and 3rd bedroom. The massing strategy therefore comprises one main pitched roof volume facing towards Campbell Street with a smaller addition to the rear, forming an L-shaped plan. 2.16. The principal elevation of the house faces east towards Campbell Street (notwithstanding that the main entrance is on the rear elevation). This principal elevation is set back approximately 14.75 metres behind the eastern site boundary wall with Campbell Street. The south end elevation of the house is some 4 metres from the southern site boundary and approximately 12 metres from the rear wall of the villa at 47 Campbell Street. The northern gable elevation is approximately 6.6 metres from the northern site boundary wall with Barclay Drive at its closet point. The main form of the house is set back approximately 7.62 metres from the western site boundary wall with no. 28 Queen Street, although the rear addition will extend to approximately 1.15 metres from the boundary with 28 Queen Street. 2.17. The principal windows to habitable rooms are placed, where possible, on the east (principal) elevation facing towards Campbell Street. This includes a large, full-height opening with glazed doors and fixed lights and smaller windows to each of the kitchen space, two bedrooms and an en-suite shower room. The glazed doors give access from the living space onto a raised, stepped terrace that wraps around the SE corner of the proposed house. There is a pair of small secondary windows to the main bedroom on the northern gable elevation at a distance of some 7.95 – 11.2 m from the northern boundary wall with Barclay Drive. The openings on the west facing elevation are limited to a glazed entrance door with fixed side lights (giving access to the hallway), and a small window to the open plan kitchen dining space. These glazed openings in the west elevation will face over the proposed parking court towards the boundary wall with no. 28 Queen St. at a distance of approximately 7.62 metres. Windows on the south elevation, facing towards the rear elevation of no. 47 Campbell Street comprise a pair of secondary windows to the living area; the principal (only) window to bedroom 3; and a glazed door with an adjacent window to a small lobby. The bedroom 3 window is approximately 4.69 metres from the south boundary of the proposed property; and some 8.0 metres from the rear elevation of no. 47 Campbell Street at its’s closest point. 2.18. Design detailing is restrained. Features include skews to the gable ends and a centrally located chimney on the south gabled elevation. The walls are to be faced with buff coloured coursed stone cladding with dressed stone detailing to window and door surrounds. The roof is to be clad in natural slate. Windows are to be double glazed, timber framed sash in case design. Fascias are to be stained timber and rainwater goods to be black coloured uPVC.
Page 27
27 2.19. The area between the east (principal) elevation and the boundary wall with Campbell Street is shown as open landscaped curtilage, shown mainly laid to lawn with additional tree and shrub planting to supplement existing trees to be retained. A small paved terrace is shown outside of the glazed doors to the living room on the east elevation. The area formed within the internal angle of the L-shaped plan at the rear of the house, bounded to the north by the stone wall boundary with no. 28 Queen Street, and to the east by the boundary wall with Barclay Drive is shown as small, hard-surfaced courtyard with parking for 2 no. vehicles with a turning area along the northern end of the house. 2.20. Vehicular access is proposed by means of a new private access onto the southern side of Barclay Drive. This involves demolition of a 3.5 metres section of the existing stone wall with Barclay Drive; construction of new stone gatepiers and installation of timber gates. It also includes a new access junction onto the southern side of Barclay Drive that will cross the existing grass verge between the edge of the surfaced public carriageway and the ‘outside’ face of the boundary wall. 2.21. Drawing no. 2954/101 Revision B shows that the proposed siting for the house will require the removal of 3 no. trees within the northwest part of the site. The proposed site plan appears to show new tree planting along the eastern and northern edges of the site bounding onto Campbell Street and Barclay Drive respectively. A hedge boundary is indicated to demarcate the southern site boundary with the ‘donor’ property, no. 47 Campbell Street. Assessment 2.22. Siting – The supporting Design Statement assesses 2 optional layouts. 2.23. Option 1 considers that locating the proposed house directly abutting the existing stone boundary wall with Campbell Street presented an opportunity to respond to the traditional siting of ancillary outbuildings within the rear curtilages of large detached villas, of which there are several local examples. This option has been discounted by the applicant on the basis that it would result in the loss of trees behind this part of the boundary wall, or the opportunity to plant new trees along this boundary; and that trees/planting along the street boundaries behind the walls are an important feature of the conservation area. It is further considered (by the applicant that this siting of a new house directly behind this wall would have a “greater than desired impact.” 2.24. Option 2 (in the supporting Design Statement) shows a proposed house of similar plan- form to Option 1, but sited towards the centre of the site with a front ‘wing’ projecting out from the principle (east) elevation of the house towards Campbell Street. The applicant considers that this siting set back from the east boundary and away from significant trees which are primarily towards the boundaries. 2.25. The siting under consideration is more along the lines of Option 2 in the Design Statement than Option 1. The main differences are that the projecting ‘wing’ on the front (east) elevation of the house has been moved to the rear. The current siting is 14.67 metres back from the east boundary wall (approximately 2 metres further back in the site than as shown in Option 2 in the Design Statement. 2.26. Officers do not necessarily accept the argument that the siting towards the western part of the site is preferential to being built directly against the eastern boundary wall with Campbell Street, as the latter site layout is considered to relate more successfully with the historic development pattern. However, the applicant wishes the application to be determined on the basis of the latest proposed site plan.
Page 28
28 2.27. In effect, the site has been ‘divided’ in half along a north/south axis with the house and the parking court sited in the western half of the site and the eastern half retained as open landscaped garden. Setting the rear wall of the house in from the western boundary wall, forms a smaller, sheltered and enclosed courtyard for car parking in an unobtrusive location to the rear of the proposed house. Notwithstanding a preference for the siting in Option 1, officers consider that the proposed siting is relatively close to the western site boundary leaving open space for landscape planting around the eastern and northern boundaries, and that this siting along with the linear plan form, simple volumetric forms and restrained detailing and materials will result in a new building that will respect the setting and the prominence of the original villa. On this basis, officers consider that the proposal has been significantly revised in relation to the refused design, to the extent that it satisfactorily addresses previous design concerns. 2.28. In addition to the revised siting, the footprint and height of the building has been significantly reduced in relation to the design refused under planning application reference 22/00996/PP. The scale of the proposed building has been significantly reduced such that there is now a clear hierarchical relationship between the original villa and the proposed new built form. 2.29. The massing has also been significantly simplified (in relation to the refused design) to create a more modest, or less demonstrative architectural language, comprising a main linear, narrow span volume with a secondary additive volume at the rear. 2.30. Objectors, including the Community Council, have expressed strong concerns on the basis of their assessment that the proposed design is unremarkable and will have the character typical of a late 20th Century bungalow, and that the standard of architectural design in relation to nearby development will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. 2.31. Planning officers agree to an extent that the proposed design has a bungalow typology principally by reason of proportions and domestic fenestration arrangement, and will not result in a newbuilding of architectural distinction. Rather, by reason of siting back from the eastern boundary, relatively small scale and site density, simple and traditional massing strategy, restrained detailing and traditional material finishes, officers consider that the proposed built development will result in a modest, undemonstrative structure that will strike an appropriate subordinate relationship with the villa, and which will respond in a satisfactory manner to the built development pattern of the conservation area in accordance with relevant planning policy. 2.32. It is proposed that the walls be stone clad in order to help to integrate the proposed new building into the historic environment with regard to material finish. ‘Modern’ stone cladding, even using natural stone, can often appear as an ‘artificial’ cosmetic element that can clash with historic stone, and result in the new building ‘standing out’ more than being assimilated into its historic context. Unsympathetic and generic stone cladding can also result in a bungalow typology. The qualities of the stone cladding, as well as the coursing, mortar, and construction methods is considered critical to the ‘success’ of the proposed building in this instance. As such, it is recommended that the details of the stone cladding be controlled by means of a planning condition. Officers also have concerns regarding the use of uPVC rainwater goods and a stained (rather than painted) finish to fascias. It is recommended that these matters also be controlled by means of condition. 2.33. It is important to make it clear within this assessment, that officers are supportive of this application having placed considerable weight on the design, in particular, with regard to the modest scale and single-storey height of the proposed building and the
Page 29
29 siting towards the edges of the site. Whilst each application will be professionally assessed on its own individual merits, were an application for an alternative form of design submitted at a future stage, it is unlikely that the planning authority would support a revised design that is larger than the current application design. For the avoidance of any future doubt or ambiguity, the applicant, developer or any future owner of the application site should be fully aware that any aspirations for a larger form of development on this sensitive site, by reason of greater footprint, height or additions to the roof forms will be assessed very carefully and may not be supported, notwithstanding approval of this proposal, should members support the recommendation. 2.34. Additionally, given the above, it is also unlikely that any design amendments to the approved design would be accepted as non-material amendments to any approval of this application where those amendments propose enlargement to the approved dwellinghouse. 2.35. By reason of the scale and siting of the proposed development, relative to existing development, officers are satisfied that there will be no loss of amenity by reason of overshadowing (i.e loss of natural daylight/sunlight to existing nearby houses.) Although there are two secondary windows to a bedroom on the north elevation, these are at ground level and approximately 30 metres from the front elevation of the closest house on the north side of Barclay Drive. The closest house on the east side of Campbell Street is approximately 25 metres from the front (east) elevation of the proposed house. Officers consider that these distances of separation, combined with an intervening boundary wall, mature natural screening and a public road will mean that the proposal will not have any material impact on the residential amenities of nearby Barclay Drive houses. This spatial relationship between existing properties and the proposed new house is not untypical of residential areas. Concern has been expressed specifically with regard to loss of amenity to occupiers of the adjacent property to the north, no. 28 Queen Street. Openings on the rear (west) elevation of the proposed house are restricted to a (non-habitable room (hallway) and a small secondary/tertiary window to the kitchen area. These openings are at ground level and face towards the boundary wall with no. 28 Queen Street at a distance of some 7.62 metres. Given this relationship between the proposed new house and the rear garden of no. 28 Queen Street, Officers are satisfied that the proposal will not materially impact on the privacy that the occupiers of the adjoining property could reasonably expect to enjoy in terms of direct overlooking of their private open amenity space. 2.36. In terms of sustainable design, the application includes a “Sustainability Checklist” and a “Sustainable Buildings Checklist” under the provisions of LDP TN06 and TN07. Officers are satisfied that sustainable principles have been addressed including: proximity to existing local services and facilities; active travel networks; flexibility of layout to support new ways of working; selective loss of existing trees to be mitigated by new planting; etc. In terms of sustainable buildings, it is submitted that the proposed building will use a highly insulated energy efficient construction to exceed current technical standards. A “Site Waste Management Plan” will be implemented and the principles of Zero Waste Scotland’s “Designing Out Construction Waste” followed. A system of rainwater harvesting will be used. Water saving sanitary ware will be installed and water efficient shower heads specified. The surface water disposal system will be attenuated by means of on-site crate storage before connection to the main sewer 2.37. Officers are satisfied that the proposal will result in a sustainable form of development during the construction and operational phases.
Page 30
30 3. Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Trees NPF 4 3.1. NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 3.2. Policy 4 indicates that development that will have an adverse impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on protected species will only be allowed where the presence of protected species is established and potential impact fully assessed prior to determination, 3.3. Policy 6 generally aims to ensure that existing woodland and trees on development sites are protected and sustainably managed. Development proposals will not be accepted where they will have an adverse impact on trees of high biodiversity value. LDP 2 3.4. Policy 06 requires that development proposals demonstrate how green and blue infrastructure has been integrated into the design; including, contribution to existing green networks; promotion of active travel; provision for biodiversity; how that proposed development will manage all rain and surface water drainage through SuDS. 3.5. Policy 73 indicates that the planning authority will give consideration to all relevant legislation, policies and conservation objectives in relation to potential impact upon nature conservation and protection of species habitat. Development will be encouraged to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity. The applicant shall provide a specialist survey where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat of importance exists on the site. Development will only be permitted where it can be justified in accordance with the relevant protected species legislation. Assessment 3.6. The application site comprises part of an existing garden area with a significant group of mature trees, large shrubs and smaller ornamental planting and some ground cover (ferns etc.) within the northern part of the garden. 3.7. The supporting Design Statement advises that the layout proposed in Option 2 has been selected in preference to Option 1, largely on the basis that it set away from significant trees. As summarised in Section G (v) the following supporting information has been submitted: • Tree Survey Statement; and, • Drawing no. 2954/101 revision B – “Existing Site Topographic Survey Retained & removed trees” This drawing shows the stem/trunks of 3 number trees to be removed i.e. 2 no. Alder and 1 no. Willow. The drawing also appears to show new tree planting. 3.8. Representations have been received expressing concern that the above information is basic, lacking in information and ambiguous. As such it is submitted that there is inadequate information to make a full assessment in respect of impact on existing trees prior to determinations, and that this may lead to significant loss of trees to the detriment of biodiversity value and visual amenity. 3.9. Officers agree with objectors that the supporting information submitted with regard to a tree survey, tree impact plan and tree protection plan falls below the industry standards and that this level of submission lacks clarity as a result.
Page 31
31 3.10. However, on balance, Officers consider that the information submitted, in conjunction with a site assessment by the case officer, is adequate to allow a full and professional assessment of this proposed development in respect of trees. 3.11. The 2 no. Alder trees are multi-stemmed species and form part of a group that extend east to west across the central part of the site. The submitted tree survey advises that these trees are 25-30 feet high and in healthy condition with no sign of diseases or abnormalities. The survey indicates that the White Willow is approximately 15 feet in height, also in healthy condition. 3.12. It is considered that whilst the garden trees and shrubs within, and adjacent to the application site, undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the visual amenity and character of the conservation area, and have some biodiversity value, it is also recognised that the garden is in a somewhat neglected and un-managed condition and that a comprehensive landscaping scheme including planting new shrubs and trees, in particular along the northern and eastern boundaries would mitigate against any impact upon the impact of the proposed loss of trees. 3.13. The site is not overlapped by any international, national or local nature conservation/biodiversity designation and there is no immediate evidence of protected species habitats within the site. However, the applicant/developer should be aware that existing trees and natural vegetation are likely to provide habitat for roosting birds and as such the applicant/developer should make themselves aware of their obligations under all relevant Wildlife and Nature Conservation legislation with regard to the timing of tree works. 3.14. With regards to the need in NPF4 Policy 3 to secure biodiversity improvements, it is not considered that there are any issues of compliance with Policy 3. Whilst 3 no. existing trees are required to be felled by reason of the proposed building, the natural features on the site have not been managed, and it is considered that a comprehensive landscaping design, incorporating planting appropriate new tree and shrub species along the site edges would create an opportunity not only to enhance the visual appearance and character of the site, but also to enhance biodiversity. On this basis, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition on the grant of permission to secure the finer detail of these proposals (biodiversity improvements) as part of the wider landscaping and boundary treatment measures for the site. 3.15. With the recommended conditions to secure the finer details of the biodiversity enhancement and protection measures within the development, as part of the wider landscaping and boundary scheme for the site; and, full Tree Impact and Tree Protection details, it is considered that the proposal aligns with the broad aims of NPF4 Policies 3 and 4, and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. 4. Historic Environment NPF 4 4.1. Policy 7 advises that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. Policy 7 (d) supports development where it will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas, having regard to the architectural and historic character of the area; existing density, built form and layout; siting, design and quality of materials. Development will ensure that existing natural and built features that contribute to the
Page 32
32 character and appearance of the conservation area are retained, including boundary walls, railings, hedges, trees, structures, etc. LDP 2 4.2. Policy 16 supports development proposals which may affect a listed building, its curtilage or wider setting where it respects the original listed building in terms of setting, scale, design, materials and use. 4.3. Policy 17 sets a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area. New development must respect the architectural, historic or other special qualities that qualified the area for conservation area designation; and conform to national policies and guidance. This includes the Appraisal of Conservation Areas in Helensburgh 2008. Assessment 4.4. The existing villa at 47 Campbell Street forms the easternmost of five large, traditional villas that form a planned townscape block that addresses Queen St. to the south, and bounded by Suffolk St. to the west, Campbell St. to the east, and by the swept curve of Barclay Drive to the north. Built development to the east, south and west of this identified townscape block is also within the designated Helensburgh Upper Conservation Area. The development pattern to the west, south and east is generally very similar in terms of being a 19th century planned street layout originally comprising mainly large detached villas set in spacious and maturely landscaped grounds predominantly facing southwards towards the water. 4.5. Some incremental infill development has taken place over period of the 20th Century within the wider conservation area, notably including the erection of a linear row of 6 no. houses of mid-late 20th century design fronting onto the eastern side of Campbell Street from the rear of no. 26 Campbell Street to the south up the hill to the railway line to the north. These houses are mostly of single storey bungalow design with the exception of one two-storey house. 4.6. The boundary of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area in this area runs along the northern side of Barclay Drive immediately to the north of 47 Campbell St. and the current application site. The boundary between the five villas south of Barclay Drive between Suffolk St. and Campbell St. is defined by an historic high stone wall, which as local residents have pointed out, is largely ‘unbroken’ with the exception of 3 no. pedestrian gates. The crescent of Barclay Drive would historically have formed the northern edge of classically planned Victorian expansion to Helensburgh in this area. 4.7. The development pattern and density of development within this ‘block’ reflects the prevalent pattern in the wider conservation area i.e. large villas set well back in their plots with principal elevations facing southwards to the water over large, formally landscaped front gardens. The classical curve of Barclay Drive, created by this particular block of townscape development forms the limit of the Victorian expansion in this locality. This important historic boundary is demarcated by an original stone wall. 4.8. The land to the north of Barclay Drive and east of Campbell Street (north of its junction with Barclay Drive) lies outside of the Upper Helensburgh conservation area. This relatively large area, bounded to the north by the railway line has since been comprehensively developed with street layout, development pattern, densities, scale and house design typical of mid-late 20th century housing estate development. This period of development, where it fronts into the northern side of Barclay Drive, is characterised by attractive but relatively modestly scaled bungalows or 1 ½ storey design within more compact curtilages with a generally regular ‘building line’ relative to
Page 33
33 the curve of Barclay Drive. Some of these houses have an eaves height and roof form typical of a single-storey bungalow but with accommodation within the roof volume, sometimes with dormer additions – conventionally referred to as 1 ½ storey design. 4.9. No. 47 Campbell Street, as described above, is the easternmost of a ‘block’ of five villas constructed in the late 19th century. It is a two storey, cream sandstone villa of imposing scale set back from the Queen Street frontage behind a large front garden. The boundary with Queen St. is demarcated by a low stone retaining wall augmented by a continuous hedgerow, with a group of mature specimen trees immediately behind. The principal, formal elevation of the villa faces southwards over this maturely landscaped garden setting towards the Clyde and Gareloch, typical of the prevalent historic pattern of built development within the extensive conservation area. The principal formal access to the villa is off of Campbell Street just to the north of its junction with Queen Street. The property is bounded to the east by Campbell Street, which is demarcated by a low stone retaining wall and attractive landscape planting adjacent to the front garden northwards up to a second, more informal gated access that traditionally would have given ‘service’ access from Campbell Street to the rear of the villa. Beyond these gates, the boundary of the rear private curtilage with Campbell Street is formed by an original stone boundary wall approximately 1.8 metres high. This stone wall continues around the corner of Campbell Street to form the form the rear (northern) boundary of the property with Barclay Drive. The property is bounded to the west by another detached villa (no. 28 Queen Street) of very similar age, scale, siting, form, design and (cream sandstone) materiality to no. 47 Campbell St. 4.10. Number 47 Campbell Street is not a listed building. The closest listed building to it, some 65 metres distant, is a category C listed dwellinghouse. Number 32 Queen Street is 3 houses to the west of no. 47 Campbell Street, within the same townscape ‘block.’ By reason of its location within a completely separate curtilage (to the closest listed building), clearly demarcated as such by stone boundary walls augmented by mature natural planting, the proposed building and the listed building will not be intervisible. Additionally, modestly scaled buildings and structures within the rear curtilages to large, imposing period villas are not uncommon to the historic pattern of built development within this conservation area. It is noted that there are some other examples of modern development within the curtilages of the historic villas within this townscape block, including the listed building, Deanston, the upper parts and roof of which area apparent fin public views from Barclay Drive. Having regard to the above considerations, officers consider that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the localised or wider setting of “Deanston”, or any other nearby listed buildings, in compliance with the provisions of NPF Policy 7 and LDP 2 Policies 15 and 16. 4.11. The special qualifying features in relation to the designation Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area has been set out above. The Appraisal of the Conservation Areas in Helensburgh has been given appropriate material weight as part of this assessment. The key issue, in this element of the assessment, is how the proposed development, in terms of its setting responds to and relates to the understanding of the historic, architectural and cultural significance of the spatial pattern and qualities of the character of the conservation area, particularly with regard to the siting of large imposing stone villas set within large plots. As set out, a strong quality of the spatial character comes from these large detached houses often sited towards the rear, or north of long rectangular plots with a north/south. As a direct response to the natural topography, sunlight and views towards the estuary, the houses were historically orientated such that the principal rooms and principal, formal elevation faced southwards over the largest area of private curtilage. These large gardens were almost always formally landscaped with trees and shrubs along the front and side boundaries. On this basis, it is considered that these open, undeveloped spaces are vulnerable to change as they form the public,
Page 34
34 or formal, setting to the principal elevations of the main building. The curtilage to the rear of these villas however, are often smaller in comparison to the front gardens and these areas tended to play a more ‘back of house’ servicing role, and as such commonly included secondary, more functional entrances and buildings/structures that served the main house, for example, coach houses, boiler houses, gardeners cottages, staff quarters etc. Additionally, the architectural approach to the rear elevations of the villas was often less grand and less ordered than the front elevations and incremental rear additions are not uncommon. It is considered that this building responds to the spatial character of the conservation area in this respect in that it has a clearly subordinate relationship with the original villa in terms of low height and modest scale; simplicity of form and detailing; and an appropriately restrained architectural expression. The siting is towards the south west corner of the site, which places it in proximity to the rear of the ‘donor’ villa and towards the western boundary wall with the property adjoining to the west. This proposed siting, scale, massing, form, architectural detailing and traditional external materials will therefore strike an appropriately subordinate relationship with the principal building and result in a pattern of development that is typical of the wider conservation area. 4.12. The applicant submits that the siting of the building away from the public boundaries of the plot with Campbell Street and Barclay Drive, will retain the open undeveloped character of the current garden site; and allow the opportunity to enhance the character of the site by additional tree and shrub planting around the site boundaries. Whilst officers consider that a building directly abutting the eastern boundary wall may be preferable in many ways, it is considered that the current approach has validity, particularly in that it will allow for new planting which may enhance, rather than simply preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. 4.13. Local concerns have been raised with regard to the impact of creating a vehicular access gate within the northern boundary wall on the south side of Barclay drive from Campbell Street to Suffolk Street. Officers are in full agreement that the integrity of this wall has particular historic and cultural importance as it marks the outward edge of an historic phase of 19th Century expansion in Helensburgh. However, as set out above, rear gateways within historic walls to the rear of large villas are quite common throughout this conservation area and as such this element of the proposal will not be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area. The section of wall to be removed will be in the region of 3.7 metres, amounting to a small proportion of the wall. The wall will otherwise be retained and its continuity, and with it the historic integrity and significance of this boundary will not be prejudiced to any material degree. The principle of forming rear gateway is therefore accepted, however it is recommended that full details of the construction of the gate piers and any gates be required by planning condition, for assessment and approval by officers. 4.14. Having regard to all material factors, and subject to the planning conditions recommended, it is considered that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the setting of nearby listed buildings nor the character or appearance of the conservation area in accordance with the relevant provisions of NPF 4 Policy 7 and LDP 2 Policies 15, 16 and 17. 5. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. NPF 4 5.1. Policy 13 supports proposals where the generated traffic requirements have been considered in line with sustainable travel principles; and where they are linked to local
Page 35
35 facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks; accessible by public transport; provide vehicle charging points in line with Building Regulations and cycle parking. LDP 2 5.2. Policy 32 largely aligns with the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 13 in terms of ensuring that new development is sustainably located with regard to local services and public transport routes, and has safe links with active travel networks. 5.3. Policy 34 requires the provision of electric vehicle charge points, or the infrastructure potential to accommodate charge points in future. For all new-build houses with private off street parking it is required to install dedicated cable ducting connecting each private residential parking space to the nearest electricity supply connection point capable of supporting the installation of a 7 kW EV charging point. 5.4. Policy 36 considers that new private accesses may acceptable where it does not, in the view of the planning authority, generate unacceptable levels of traffic in relation to the access regime. The private access should serve a development not exceeding 5 houses. 5.5. Policy 39 sets out construction standards for ne private accesses in order to function safely and effectively. This includes reference to visibility, geometry, gradients, widths, etc. 5.6. Policy 40 requires the provision of off-street parking to Council approved standards relative to the type of development as set out in Table 5. For housing (Use Class 9) the requirement is for 2 spaces per 2-3 bedroom unit or 3 spaces for a 4-bedroom (or more) unit. Assessment 5.7. It is noted that several local residents have objections to the proposed new access onto the south side of Barclay Drive. Many of these express a strong preference for an alternative new private access onto Campbell Street, however the planning authority must assess the application on the basis that it is submitted. Concerns generally relate to the width, alignment, junction geometry, low intensity usage and that as such, the road is not suitable by design to accommodate the additional traffic movements generated by a new dwellinghouse without creating traffic hazards. Additionally, residents submit that the road is a very quiet residential road with low intensity usage, and that the resultant intensification of use will be detrimental to the quiet character of the street. 5.8. Barclay Drive is a two-way residential through road that connects Campbell Street ultimately to Macleod Drive. The eastern section of the road runs between Campbell Street and Suffolk Street. Traffic on Barclay Drive gives way to the junctions onto Campbell Street and Suffolk Street, and in comparison to these latter two roads, it is quieter in nature. The section of Barclay Drive (between Campbell Street and Suffolk Street has 9 no. existing private accesses to dwellinghouses, all of which are off the northern side of the road. There are no vehicular accesses off of the south side of Barclay Drive. The northern side of Barclay Drive has a narrow public footway that runs along the front of houses on Barclay Drive. The southern side of the road has a grass verge with a high stone wall behind. 5.9. The proposed means of access to the application site is by means of a new private access off of the south side of Barclay Drive. The centre line of the proposed private access is approximately 35 metres to the west of the junction of Barclay Drive with Campbell Street. The alignment of Barclay Drive is not perpendicular with Campbell
Page 36
36 Street, and as such, vehicles travelling north along Campbell Street and turning left onto Barclay Drive have to negotiate a relatively tightly radius curve through approximately 135O. 5.10. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed by local residents, officers consider that the level of intensification of vehicular and pedestrian traffic using Barclay Drive as a result of an additional 3 bedroom houses will not be significant relative to the existing use, and that the road although a quiet residential road has adequate design capacity to accommodate the additional residential traffic generated by one dwellinghouse without material detriment to road safety. 5.11. This is consistent with the comments by the Council’s Area Roads engineer who has no objections to the proposed development subject to specified planning conditions regarding the design, layout and construction of the proposed junction. Area Roads does not raise any potential constraints to these design criteria being achieved. 5.12. However, the current application drawings show a new access gateway to be formed in the existing wall with a clear width of 3.5 metres. This is not consistent with the terms of the planning condition recommended by Area Roads that requires a minimum access width of 5.5 metres over the first 10.0 metres. 5.13. Additionally, the Area Roads recommend that the roads condition requires the proposed gates to open inwards and to be located at least 6.0 metres back from the edge of the carriageway to allow a standing vehicle to stop clear of the highway when the gates are closed. 5.14. Both of these matters have been taken up with the applicant and it is intended that a that a resolution will be reported to Committee in a Supplementary Report, however it is not considered that the width of the access will be a determining factor in this assessment, and this matter can be resolved by means of planning condition. 5.15. With regard to active travel principles, it is recognised that the proposed development is located within an existing town with easy access to public transport routes and local facilities and services. The location is appropriate in terms of connecting into existing active travel networks including walking, wheeling and cycling. The provision of a vehicle charging point, or the infrastructure to allow its installation at a future date can be secured by means of a planning condition. 5.16. The proposed layout shows a hard-surface parking area for 2 no. cars and a turning head to allow vehicles to turn within the site in order that they can enter and egress the site in a forward gear. The Area Roads Engineer has reviewed this plan and the consultation response does not indicate that the layout cannot provide adequate space for vehicle turning. 5.17. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal accords with active travel principles and provides an adequate private access regime to serve the proposed development without any materially adverse impact upon issues of road safety or the flow of vehicles. 6. Infrastructure NPF 4 6.1. Policy 18 advises that development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. LDP 2
Page 37
37 6.2. Policy 60 requires that all development will manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), which should form part of and integrate with proposed and existing blue-green infrastructure. Assessment 6.3. It is proposed to connect to the public water supply and waste water drainage network. The consultation response from Scottish water does not indicate that there are any capacity issues that would prevent the proposed development being serviced in this manner. 6.4. The planning application forms state that the proposal does not make provision for sustainable urban drainage. Surface water drainage details are not shown on any other drawings and this matter is not covered in the Design Statement. 6.5. However, the submitted Sustainable Buildings Checklist advises that “The surface water disposal system will be attenuated by means of on-site crate storage before connection to the main sewer.” The Checklist also states that a “system of rainwater harvesting will be used.” 6.6. There is an inconsistency between the above two elements of the application information; and this does not help with clarity in relation to surface water drainage. The proposal to connect to the main sewer appears to be unacceptable to Scottish Water. Whilst Scottish Water advise that there may be exceptional circumstances where a connection to the combined public sewer system for brownfield sites only, this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical and technical challenges. There is no submitted evidence to suggest that the applicant has entered into negotiations with Scottish Water to demonstrate an exceptional case for surface water connection, and as such there is no certainty that the proposed surface water drainage proposals can be achieved. 6.7. It is proposed to surface the private access, parking and manoeuvring area with porous materials. 6.8. It is acknowledged that a previous application for planning permission has been refused by the planning authority for several reasons including lack of demonstrable evidence that the proposed development can be adequately serviced by surface water drainage. The revised proposal currently under consideration has undergone significant revisions such that officers are now satisfied that the proposal can be supported, and as such the single remaining issue relates to a technical matter of provision for surface water drainage within the site. In these changed circumstances, officers consider that a technical solution is achievable and as such that it would be appropriate to seek an appropriate resolution of this servicing issue by means of a suspensive planning condition requiring the submission of full details for a sustainable drainage system for assessment by officers in consultation with the Council’s flood risk/drainage consultant, prior to the commencement of any development.