LRB Report 2300697PP combined
North Ayrshire Council · 24 April 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 24 April 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 24 April 2024 Local Review Body Title: Notice of Review: 23/00697/PP: Site to North West of Eglinton House, Kilwinning Purpose: To submit, for consideration of the Local Review Body, a Notice of Review by the applicant in respect of a planning application refused by officers under delegated powers. Recommendation: That the Local Review Body considers the Notice of Review. 1. Executive Summary 1.1 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006, provides for certain categories of planning application for "local" developments to be determined by appointed officers under delegated powers. Where such an application is refused, granted subject to conditions or not determined within the prescribed period of 2 months, the applicant may submit a Notice of Review to require the Planning Authority to review the case. Notices of Review in relation to refusals must be submitted within 3 months of the date of the Decision Notice. 2. Background 2.1 A Notice of Review was submitted in respect of Planning Application 23/00697/PP for tourism development comprising the erection of 7 no. glamping pods, shower/toilet block and the formation of a car park and footpaths on a site to the North West of Eglinton House, Kilwinning. 2.2 The application was refused by officers for the reasons detailed in the Decision Notice. 2.3 The following related documents are set out in the appendices to the report: Appendix 1 - Notice of Review documentation; Appendix 2 - Representations received from interested parties; Appendix 3 - Comments from applicant on further representations received; Appendix 4 - Report of Handling; Appendix 5 - Location Plan; and Appendix 6 - Planning Decision Notice. 3. Proposals 3.1 The Local Review Body is invited to consider the Notice of Review.
Page 2
4. Implications/Socio-economic Duty Financial 4.1 None arising from the recommendation of this report. Human Resources 4.2 None arising from the recommendation of this report. Legal 4.3 The Notice of Review requires to be considered in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. Equality/Socio-economic 4.4 None arising from the recommendation of this report. Environmental and Sustainability 4.5 None arising from the recommendation of this report. Key Priorities 4.6 None arising from the recommendation of this report. Community Benefits 4.7 None arising from the recommendation of this report. 5. Consultation 5.1 Interested parties (both objectors to the planning application and statutory consultees) were invited to submit representations in terms of the Notice of Review and no further representations were received. Craig Hatton Chief Executive For further information please contact Craig Stewart, Committee Services Officer, on 01294 324130. Background Papers 0
Page 3
Page 1 of 5 Cunninghame House Friars Croft Irvine KA12 8EE Email: eplanning@north-ayrshire.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100583113-004 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Ash Architectural Simon Ash Appendix 1
Page 4
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Other Mr & Ms S North Ayrshire Council McLean & Pearce Land Adjacent to Eglington House, Kilwinning, North Ayrshire 642334 231278
Page 5
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) 7 Glamping Pods and a Toileet 23/00697/PP The decision made has a number of inaccuracies and exagerations.
Page 6
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Appeal document and Appendix A 23/00697/PP 04/12/2023 11/10/2023
Page 7
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Simon Ash Declaration Date: 28/02/2024
Page 8
Φ ASH ARCHITECTURAL C H A RT E R E D A RC H I T E C T S Planning Appeal : For Mr SMcLean and Ms SPearce Architect: Ash Architectural
Page 9
Summary of case 1. Introduction 2. Proposed development 3. Site is located close to town centre and community facilities 4. The adopted North Ayrshire Plan 5. Compliance with the Proposed NorthAyrshire LocalDevelopmentPlan 6. Concluding Statement 7. Appendices
Page 10
Summaryof case This statement presentsthe case to North Ayrshire Council’s Local Review Body that the application for planning for7 glamping pods and atoilet (reference 23/00697/PP)should be granted. 1. The application proposes 7rustic glamping pods and aseparate toilet facility. 2. The development accordswith Countryside objectives. Section 5 3. The development accordswith Placemakingobjectives. Section 6 4. The development accordswith Listed Buildingsobjectives.Section 7 5. The development accordswith Historic Gardens andDesignedLandscape objectives.Section 8 6. The development accordswith Green and Blue Infrastructure objectives.Section 9 7. The development accordswith Landscape and Seascape. Section10 8. The development accordswith Low and Zero CarbonEnergy.Section 11 9. The development accordswith NPF4.Section 12
Page 11
1. Introduction 1.1 This statement presentsthe case to North Ayrshire Council’s Local Review Body that an application for planning permission (reference 23/00697/PP) fora Tourism development comprising the erectionof7no. glamping pods, shower/toilet block and the formationof acar parkand footpaths. 1.2 The site lieswithinthe Country Park, northwestof Eglington House, Kilwinning, North Ayrshire 1.3 The site lieswithin EglintonCountry Park comprising self seeded trees.Traditional sandstone and render house liesto the east. 2. The proposed development 2.1 Planning permission issought fortemporary permission onthe site for7 glamping pods, car parking, footpath and separate shower andtoiletblockon11th September2023. As indicated onthe plan submittedwith the application.
Page 12
2.2 The submitted layout plan is as follow. 2.3 The application was accompanied by an Arborist Report. The report indicatedthat a substantial amountoftrees were of poor quality or had limited life span remaining. The applicant therefore appliedfor and received afelling licence to remove trees. Permission was grantedtoremove 64 trees. To dateonly 27 of the trees have been removed together withmuch ofthe low level shrubbery comprisingRhododendron Ponticum. RhododendronPonticum is a non native invasive plant and as such requires careful removaland disposal. See appendix A 2.4 No healthy trees have been cut down in the land managementoperations that have been undertakenotherthat trees directly under thepower lines.The treesunderthe powerlineswere removedby Scottish power for safety reasons. 2.5 The councils arborist reported thatsome ofthe treeswere potentially in a dangerous conditionbut refused ameeting onsite to discuss the health and safety implications and dangers to the public. 2.6 With the trees removed the applicant set about locating the podswithout the need to remove any healthy trees.The podsare of arustic nature and reflect the construction of the neighbouring stablesratherthat the sandstone listed building. It is intended that the podsand the shower block blend with nature whilst having aquirky individualism.
Page 13
2.7 The development has beenproposed asa temporary application to allow funds to further develop and replant the site.There is a proposal to restock the trees by 2026 howeverthe council have identified through theirown arboristsinspection thatall the treesare could be subjectto root damage astheir roots have been disturbed by the felling operation and stump removal. The applicant has confermentthat the only roots that have been removed are this relating to Rhododendron Ponticum and thisis required as aresultofthisbeing an invasive species.There is strongevidence ofHoney Fungus and it is evident that all trees inthe site maybe affected whichwill require a clear felland a periodof ground recovery should thisbe the case.
Page 14
3. Site is located close to town centre and communityfacilities 3.1 The relationshipof the site to the towncentre can be seen in the following diagram 3.2 Existing areasof the townare shownon the diagram circled in red. It will be seen that the application site is located near the central sectionof the town and iseasily accessible to the town centre by footpath links. 3.3 The site isclose enough to the towncentre to provide necessary facilitiesand far enough away to provide a rural experience.
Page 15
4. Adopted North Ayrshire Local Development Plan 4.1 The adoptedDevelopmentPlan for Eglinton Country Park is in North Ayrshire. As mentioned before the site lies withinEglinton Country ParkThe following topic areas and policies inthe LocalDevelopment are relevant to the proposed development. 5. Policy1(CountrysideObjective) 5.1 The planning department recognise thatthis is atourism opportunity and isacceptable within the localplan. The planning departmentfurther recognisesthat the developmentwould promote economic activity and contribute to the areas tourist offer. 5.2 There are within the parkother areas for camping, these areas are notopen to the public and can only be booked as ablock for larger numbersconsequently this developmentoffersanopportunity to welcomingmore visitorsto the area.The Ranger Map shown indicates the camping arearequiring prebooking. 5.3 Currently the applicantcanlegally offerthe site forcamping forpaymentfor upto 28 days in acalendaryearwithout the need for approval. 5.4 Within the Scottish rightto roam legislationmy client is able to offerthis site asafree venue forwild camping. 5.5 Camping is an acceptable use for the site howeverthe two options available to the applicant offer no viable means ofmanaging the site to regulate for being agood neighbour. 5.6 Temporary permission affords the council anopportunity to manage permissible camping and decide further downthe line if thistypeof developmentworkswithin the park setting. 5.7 The applicant submitsthatif the site issuitable for limited and wildcamping itwould make more sense to offeramanaged approach forthebenefitsofthe park. 6. Policy2(Placemaking) 6.1 The development issited in a woodland area whichisin the processof receivingground maintenance lacking fora good numberofyears. The maintenance has resulted in the removal ofinvasive speciesand many treesthat are low and poor quality. Approval of this wasobtained from the Forestry Commission. The current licence hasbeen
Page 16
suspended however anew one has been applied for.The applicant willonly do asmuch workas isessentialwith no unnecessary tree felling. 6.2 The rusticnature ofthe proposed buildings is in characterto the surrounding woodland. The temporary nature ofthe application(5 years) affords the council time to considermore long term aesthetics should the development be sustainable financially. As the planning department has noted the design is “reminiscentof atypicalforestry cabin”. The building are cabins and are locatedwithina managed forest. 6.3 By granting temporary approvalforthe developmentthe council canmanage the impactonthe parkfora predefined period to determine if any perceived negative impactsresulting from noise and disturbance are present. Block bookings already established inthe parkare more likely to resultin nuisance asthey are more likely to bring together groupswhoare know to one another. Individual booking can be managed to avoid this problem. 6.4 The planning department acceptthat the development is within walking distance of Kilwinning. 6.5 The applicant contends that the developmentwould accordwith the StrategicPolicy 2 and granting a time limitedapprovaloffers the applicant an opportunity to provethe concept. 7. Policy10(Listed Buildings) 7.1 The listed building is surrounded by trees and isshielded from thisdevelopment. The listed building is also screened from the park. 7.2 The currentEglinton House has a numberof temporary structureswithin the grounds thatmimicthe design of the pods andthe toilet block.These sheds are typicalof domesticliving and are found in all residential development. 7.3 Eglinton House has beenextended previously with a very modern extensionwhich evidently does notcomplywith the policy quoted. This extension is facing the development. 7.4 The development is inkeeping with the Pony Partnership properties whichare acceptable. 7.5 The applicant contends that Policy 10 isbeing respected in so far asother small scale buildings surrounding Eglinton House have. Itshould also be respectedthat thisisa temporary application. 8. Policy11(HistoricGardens and Designed Landscapes) 8.1 Site is located within the park. The landsurrounding the site ismainly agricultural and used for livestock andthe Pony Partnership. Thisdevelopmentwill have limited,if any, impactonthe historicalsetting and to suggestthat itbrings down the characterof the park is humorousverging on hysterical. 8.2 The applicant submitsthatraising this issue is irrelevant to the argument asthe main Historicalfeaturesof the park are a substantialdistance from the site. Notwithstanding this the buildings are within the forested area and are screened,mostly from the park. 9. Policy14(Green andBlue Infrastructure.) 9.1 The applicant iscurrently engaged in dialogue with the Forestry Commission anduntil such time that this isconcluded no agreement can be achievedforrestocking the site. 9.2 The applicant hasmetthe criteriaofPolicy 14 in so far as itcan be achieved.
Page 17
9.3 10. Policy15(Landscapeand Seascape.) 10.1 The development isvery much integrated into the “forest” withrusticcabinsmade from reused and felledtimbers. The woodland willbe retained asmuchas possible and will be re-established where necessary. 10.2 The applicant contends that the scale ofthis developmentwill have very little impacton the landscape and therefore conformswith thispolicy. 10.3 Much orthe ground was coveredin Himalayan Balsam, Ragwartand Ivy because of previousbad landmanagement. It was therefore necessary to scrape the surface ofthe land to remove the invasive species. 10.4 The applicant isan Apriarist and has an additional desire to use the land forkeeping bees. It istherefore necessary thatthe land is fee from herbicides and pesticides this resulted inthe scraping ofthe land to remove the invasive species.This complieswith the councils ecology aims. 11. Policy29(Low and Zero Carbon Energy) 11.1 Glamping is aconceptthatis more luxuriousthan camping it is therefore amiddle ground between the traditional canvas tent and acottage. The term “glamping” is a portmanteauof“glamorous” and“camping.” 11.2 It is intended butnot described in the application thatthe developmentwill be free from fixedutilitiesresulting in solar power for anelectrical supply and abio discfor waste disposal.This iswithin the realmsofglamping.Where apowersupply in atent is more likely batteriesof gaslighting and the waste disposal isa bucket and a hole in the ground. 11.3 The applicant contends that the term “glamping” infers Low Energy andZero Carbon and therefore complieswith this policy. 12. Strategic PolicyNPF4 12.1 The newly introduced NPF4 policy isnow partofthe DevelopmentPlan 12.2 The site had had zero maintenance formany decadesthis has resulted in the need for changes to the natural environment. 12.3 As ameansto speed upthe necessary establishment of the forestand the site ina more mangedway it would be betterto haver funding forthe project. 12.4 Approving the planning permission and workingwith the applicant hasto be a better way forward to achieving asustainable forest. 12.5 Granting this appeal provides ameansoffunding to allow work to progressand a manage forest to re emerge from the ashesof neglect.
Page 18
13. Concluding Statement 13.1 The applicant hassetoutto reinvigorate the forest and bring it back into use. Inorder to undertake this project successfully the applicantrequires the site to generate a revenue stream 13.2 Policy 1 has been achieved. 13.3 Policy 2 has been achieved. 13.4 Policy 10 has been achieved 13.5 Policy 11 has been achieved 13.6 Policy 14 isongoing and will be achieved inthe long term 13.7 Policy 15 isongoing and will be achieved inthe long term. 13.8 Policy 29 is absolute forthe applicant so the applicant is committedto this. 13.9 The SPF4 strategy isvery important for the environment the applicant with their interestin beeshave a strong commitment to the environment so thiswill be achieved. 13.10 This applicationhas be erroneously refused andthe review body should overturn this decision.
Page 19
Tree Survey BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations Woodland Plot at Garden Cottage Kilwinning Land adjacent to Eglington house KA13 7QA 22nd June 2022 Prepared for Stuart McLean & Susan Pearce Prepared by C. A. Calvey, P.T.I., Tech.Cert (Arbor.A), Cert.Arb (RFS), BA Hons. Principal Arboricultural Consultant Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd
Page 20
CONTENTS Introduction & Survey Findings Summary Page 1 Arboricultural Analysis & Woodland Recommendations Page 2 Site Location Plan (Scale 1:1250) Page 3 Tree Positions Plan (Scale 1: 525) Page 4 Tree Positions Plan (Scale 1: 525) Page 5 Tree Positions Plan – Low quality Trees (Scale 1: 525) Page 6 Tree Positions Plan – Moderate quality Trees (Scale 1: 525) Page 7 Tree Schedule Pages 8 - 29 Tree Survey Assessment criteria Pages 30 - 31 Arboricultural Method Statement – Guidance Pages 32- 38 Report Limitations Pages 39 - 40 Appendix 1: Project Contact Details Page 41 Appendix 2: References Page 42
Page 21
Page 1 Introduction The arboricultural survey was conducted in June 2022 for the woodland plot, referred to as Garden Cottage, adjacent to Eglington house, KA13 7QA. Trees were assessed in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations. Christopher Calvey and Callum Calvey are independent arboriculturists and the report presents an impartial assessment of the tree stock. The report is based on visual inspections conducted from ground level for the purpose of categorizing trees in relation to design, demolition and construction and does not provide reliable data on tree safety. This report is not, nor should it be taken to be, a full or thorough assessment of the health and safety of trees on or adjacent to the site, and therefore it is recommended that detailed tree inspections of retained trees are undertaken on a regular basis with the express purpose of complying with the landowner’s duty of care and satisfying health and safety requirements. Please refer to Report Limitations on pages 39 - 40. The authority of this report ceases within one year from the date of the survey or following severe weather occurrences which supersede the current validity of the report. Proposed Site Use and Tree Protection Measures The design proposals have flexibility and at an early stage such that there are opportunities to improve the woodland and protect trees. The owners regard the woodland composition as fundamental to the character of the site and their vision for it. The proposals are for a low impact tourism development of fixed ‘glamping’ style structures with a forestry workshop and residential house. The tree plan on page 7 shows the distribution of Moderate quality trees and page 6 the distribution of Low-quality trees. Please refer to the Draft Arboricultural Method Statement (Pages 8 – 14) which provides tree protection guidance to be considered during development. Woodland Description The woodland comprises of 184 individual trees. All trees are self-seeded, and no planted specimens are recorded. Woodland establishment is comparatively recent at circa 30 years with 7 mature trees predating woodland colonization. The woodland is dense with an excessive number of trees competing for restricted light and space. Due to competition trees are taller and thinner than desirable with small high canopies. Mature Rhododendron ponticum (Non-Native Invasive Species) has established on the southwest aspect of the woodland and expanding range by colonization. The shrub layer is largely absent. An overhead Power (OHPL) line divides the site north to south and trees have been historically cleared forming a clear corridor below wires. Assuming the power line is to be retained tree clearance will be a continuous requirement. Please refer to Appendix 2, page 42. Currently woodland quality is arboriculturally and ecologically Low, although the potential to bring the woodland into positive management is high. Please refer to woodland management on page 2. Tree Survey Plans (pages 3-5) Trees are identified by a numbered tree tag attached to the tree which corresponds to the site plan and tree schedule. Tree maps show the position of trees, crown spread, and maximum rooting zone illustrated by grey dodecagons. The crown spread of a tree is identified by a coloured circle and illustrates: 1. Green for ‘A’ (High quality trees) 2. Mid blue for ‘B’ (Moderate quality trees) 3. Grey for ‘C’ (Low quality trees) 4. Dark Red for ‘U’ (trees ‘Unsuitable’ for retention in the current land use).
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
Page 3
Page 24
Page 4
Page 25
Page 5
Page 26
Page 6
Page 27
Page 7
Page 28
Page 8
Page 29
Page 9
Page 30
Page 10
Page 31
Page 11
Page 32
Page 12
Page 33
Page 13
Page 34
Page 14
Page 35
Page 15
Page 36
Page 16
Page 37
Page 17
Page 38
Page 18
Page 39
Page 19
Page 40
Page 20
Page 41
Page 21
Page 42
Page 22
Page 43
Page 23
Page 44
Page 24
Page 45
Page 25
Page 46
Page 26
Page 47
Page 27
Page 48
Page 28
Page 49
Page 29
Page 50
Page 30 Tree Survey Assessment Criteria The tree survey is undertaken in accordance with a range of criteria listed in BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations. Quality Category Category A: (HIGH quality, trees with particular merit with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years). Category B: (MODERATE quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years). Category C: (LOW quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years). Category U: (UNSUITABLE quality, in such condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use. Life expectancy less than 10 years). Sub Categories: The BS 5837 subcategories: 1 - mainly Arboricultural Qualities, 2 - mainly landscape qualities, 3 - Cultural qualities. Tree Condition Defects or diseases and relevant observations have been recorded under condition of Crown, Stem, Basal area and Physiological condition. It is important to appreciate that in BS5837 criteria only basic condition categories are recorded and the inspection process does not constitute a tree safety survey. The overall condition of a tree has been referred to as one of the following: • Good: A sound tree needing little if any attention at the time of survey. • Fair: A tree with minor but rectifiable defects or in the early stages of stress, from which it may recover. The tree may have structural weaknesses which might result in failure. • Poor: A tree with clear and obvious major structural and or physiological defects or stressed such that it would be expensive to retain and necessarily requires to be inspected on a regular basis for safety purposes. • Decline: Irreversible with death inevitable in the short term. • Dead. To be removed unless stated to the contrary. Age Class Age Class and Life Expectancy are clearly related but the distinction is necessary due to the variation between tree species. Knowledge of the longevity of individual species has been applied to determine the relative age and life expectancy categories in which trees are placed. Age class is classified as: • Y: Young trees up to 15 years of age. • SM: Semi-mature trees less than 1/3rd life expectancy. • EM: Early Mature trees between 1/3rd and ½ of life expectancy. • M: Mature trees between ½ and 2/3rd of life expectancy. • LM: Late mature - A senescent or moribund specimen with a limited safe useful life expectancy. • V: Veteran status – a tree of significant age and character such that even in poor condition the tree has a value for retention for arboricultural or ecological reasons.
Page 51
Page 31 Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) The survey schedule identifies a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) for each tree. This is a subjective assessment of the number of years that the tree can be expected to survive without deteriorating to the extent that safety is compromised. The estimated remaining contribution is given in ranges of years (<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 40, >40). It is important to note that SULE does not in any way suggest that regular inspection and remedial work can be ignored. SULE does not take into account routine management that will be required to deal with minor structural or cultural problems, or damage that may arise from climatic or other physical intervention. The SULE value given for each tree reflects the following opinion based on current tree condition and environmental considerations: <10 years. The tree has very limited prospects, due to terminal decline or major structural problems. Its removal should be planned within the next 10 years, unless immediate removal is recommended for safety reasons. 10-20 years. The tree has obvious structural or physiological problems that cannot be rectified, and decline is likely to continue. Removal or major tree surgery work may be necessary, or the species is approaching its normal life expectancy and decline due to senescence can be expected within this timeframe. 20-40 years. Relatively minor defects may exist that are likely to increase safety risks or general tree health over a longer period of time. At this stage it is not possible to fully predict the impact of such defects. Or the species is approaching its normal life expectancy and due to senescence decline can be expected within this timeframe. >40. There is currently no health or structural problems evident, and the tree can be expected to survive safely for 40 or more years.
Page 52
Page 32 Arboricultural Method Statement – Guidance Introduction The Arboricultural Method Statement provides guidance taking into account the effects of any tree loss required to implement the design, and any potentially damaging activities proposed in the vicinity of retained trees. The method statement may require to be revised in the light of specific proposals as the design plan develops or is amended. In addition to the impact of the permanent works, account must be taken of the build-ability of the scheme in terms of how trees may be affected by access, adequate working space and provision for the storage of materials during the development. The location and dimensions of all proposed excavations or changes in ground level, including any that might arise from the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures requires being assessed. Recommendations 1. The Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan should be communicated to all members of the Construction Team. 2. Tree protection measures should be implemented, including the erection of a tree protection fence and Hand Dig method within the rooting zone of trees. 3. Contractor parking to be on existing hard standing. 4. It is imperative that no materials, fuel or other material is stored within the rooting zones of any trees. Tree Constraints and Root Protection Area (RPA): Information Tree root protection distances are calculated using BS5837:2012 recommendations. Where the precautionary distance is impeded for trees to be retained mitigation measures are advocated. In circumstances where a tree is to be removed for the design proposal to progress and no alternative is available tree felling require to be agreed by the Planning Authority prior to construction or demolition activity. Below ground constraints to development are represented by the area surrounding the tree that contains sufficient rooting volume to ensure survival of each tree to be retained. This is referred to as the RPA and is shown as a 12 sided hatched circle (dodecagon) of a given radius, calculated using the formula below. The circle may be modified in shape to maintain a similar total area depending on the presence of surrounding obstacles. A RPA is equivalent to a circle with a radius 12 x the stem diameter for single stem trees and 10 x the basal diameter for trees with more than one stem arising less than 1.5 metres above ground level.
Page 53
Page 33 Table 1: Formula taken from 'Table 2: Calculating the RPA', British Standard 5837 (2012) RPA (m2) = (stem diameter (mm) x 12 / 1000) 2 x 3.142 This figure should be capped to 707m2, equivalent to a circle with a radius of 15m, or a square with approximately 26m sides. Root Protection Information The rooting zone of trees is indicated by the grey dodecagons on site maps. Construction access may take place within the RPA if suitable ground protection measures are in place. This may comprise single scaffold boards over a compressible layer laid onto geo-textile materials for frequent pedestrian movements. Vehicular movements over the RPA will require the calculation of expected loading and may require the use of proprietary protection systems. Recommendations 1. Prior to construction a Tree Protection Plan is normally required showing Construction Exclusion Zones (CEZ) behind a Tree Protection Fence which eliminates the need for further ground protection measures within this area. 2. Where excavation is required through the rooting zone of trees to be retained a hand dig excavation through the root system is recommended. Unearthed roots should be severed using secateurs and wrapped with wet hessian. Excavated trenches should be re-filled within 12 hours with soil. If operational require a longer period trenches should be covered over with plastic sheeting and refilled within 48 hours. Changes in levels: Information Where it is shown that the construction of a walls or buildings encroaches within the RPA of a retained tree, the foundations of the wall or building will be excavated in such a manner so as to minimize the detrimental effect of the construction on the tree’s roots. In these situations any excavations within the RPA of an affected tree will only be undertaken following exploration of the existing root system by a hand dig approach and the necessary root pruning undertaken to allow excavation without unnecessary pulling and tearing of the roots to be retained. Installation and layout of services Information In the situation that excavations within the RPA of a tree is required that has not been previously considered by the Implications Assessment, this should only be undertaken following exploration of the existing root system with an air spade and the necessary root pruning undertaken to allow excavation. Overhead Services: Information All routes for overhead services should they be required will aim to avoid the trees. Where this is unavoidable, any tree work will be agreed prior to commencement with the Arboricultural Officer. All service providers (Statutory Authorities) will be consulted prior to commencement of works with the aim of minimizing the number of service runs on the site.
Page 54
Page 34 Tree Protection Barriers Information Retained trees require to be adequately protected during works. Measures to protect these should follow the best practice principles set out in British Standard 5837: (2012). These have been broadly summarised below: All trees retained on site will be protected by barriers or ground protection where indicated in accordance with British Standard 5837: (section 4.6). Fencing will be erected prior to commencement of construction and before the erection of any temporary structures. Once set up, fences should not be removed or altered without prior consultation with the Arboricultural advisor. Pre-development tree works should be undertaken prior to the installation of fencing. The fencing must be fixed into the ground to withstand accidental impact from machinery, erected prior to site start and retained on site and intact through to completion of development. All weather notices shall be erected on said fencing with words "Construction exclusion zone - Keep out". Within the fenced off areas creating the Construction Exclusion Zones the following prohibitions must apply:- *No vehicular or plant access *No raising or lowering of the existing ground level * No mechanical digging or scraping * No storage of temporary buildings, plant, equipment, materials or soil * No hand digging * No lighting of fires * No handling discharge or spillage of any chemical substance, including cement washings Reason: To ensure that existing trees are protected during construction from damage in the interests of maintaining the existing woodland setting and the visual and environmental amenity of the area. Any trees that are not retained should be felled prior to the erection of protective fencing. Particular attention needs to be given by approved contractors to minimise damage or disturbance to retained specimens. All tree works should follow best practice procedures as set out in British Standard 3998: Tree Work - Recommendations' (2010). All trees should be maintained in good condition on site and be regularly inspected annually (where overall condition requires) and after any major storm events, with safety as a priority. Recommendations 1. Fencing should be strong and suitable for the location, type and proximity of construction activity. Barriers must remain rigid and complete. 2. Fencing should comprise a scaffold framework comprising a vertical and horizontal framework. For particular areas where construction activity is anticipated to be intense higher fencing may be necessary. Typical fencing specifications are illustrated in Figure 1. 3. Following a change of land use trees should be inspected on a regular basis where they are in close proximity to frequently occupied spaces.
Page 55
page 35 Removal of Tree Protection Fencing Tree protection fencing should remain in place throughout the period of construction. No heavy plant should access the RPA of any tree. Figure 1: Protective Fencing Specifications Based on BS5837 (2012) - Recommendations 1. Standard scaffold poles. 2. Uprights to be driven into the ground. 3. Panels secured to uprights with wire ties and where necessary with standard scaffold clamps. 4. Weldmesh wired to the uprights and horizontals. 5. Standard clamps 6. Wire twisted and secured on the inside face of fencing to avoid easy dismantling. 7. Ground level.
Page 56
Page 36 Protection outside the exclusion zone Once the areas around trees have been protected by the fencing, any works on the remaining site area may be commenced providing activities do not impinge on protected areas. Notices should be placed on fencing to indicate that operations are not permitted within the fenced area. Wide or tall loads etc. should not come into contact with retained trees. Banksmen should supervise transit of vehicles, jibs, booms etc. where this is in close proximity to retained trees. Oil, bitumen, cement or other material that is potentially injurious to trees should not be stacked or discharged within 10m of a tree bole. No concrete mixing should be done within 10m of a tree. Allowance should be made for the slope of ground to prevent materials running towards trees. No fires should be lit where flames are anticipated to extend to within 5m of tree foliage, branches or trunk, taking into consideration wind direction and size of fire. Notice boards, telephone cables or other services should not be attached to any part of a retained tree. Protection of Trees Close to the Site: Information All trees located outside the boundaries of the assessment site yet within close proximity to works should be adequately protected during the course of the development by barriers or ground protection around the calculated RPA. Any trees which are to be retained and whose RPAs may be affected by the development should be monitored to identify any alterations in quality with time and to assess and undertake any remedial works required as a result. Protection for Aerial Parts of Retained Trees: Information Where it is deemed necessary to operate a wide or tall load, plant bearing booms, jibs and counterweights or other such equipment, as part of construction works, and such equipment would have potential to cause injurious contact with crown material i.e. low branches and limbs, of retained trees within the RPA fencing, it is best advised that appropriate, but limited tree surgery, be carried out beforehand to remove any obvious problem branches. This is classed as 'Access Facilitation Pruning', British Standard 5837: (2012) paragraphs 8.8.1.2. Any such pruning should be undertaken in accordance with a specification prepared by an arboriculturist. In the event of having caused any such branch or limb damage to retained trees it is strongly recommended that suitable tree surgery be carried out, in accordance with British Standard 3998: 'Tree Work - Recommendations' (2010), to correct the damage. Recommendations It is strongly advised that a pre-commencement site meeting is held with contractors who are responsible for operating machinery, as described above, to firstly highlight the potential for damage occurring to tree crowns and to ensure that extra care is applied when manoeuvring machinery during such operations within close proximity to retained trees to avoid any contact. Demolition of existing buildings and surfaces: Information In advance of demolition to buildings and manmade surfaces tree protection fencing must be in place and a suitable location for spoil allocated.
Page 57
Page 37 Exposure due to tree removal: Information Wind throw (wind blow) is a consideration when trees are removed from any group. Construction site access: Information The access and egress for the operation should occur via existing hard standing or a new access created away from tree rooting zones unless otherwise agreed and protection measures put in place. Recommendation In the pre-construction briefing it should be made clear that parking or traversing heavy plant on areas adjacent to trees to be retained will damage tree roots. Construction site layout (offices, parking) Information With the current availability of open ground and roadside parking, no structures or vehicle parking associated with site management should be required within areas where trees are present. Construction site materials storage Information Materials should be stored in a designated area. The space for storing (whether temporary or long- term) materials, spoil and fuel and the mixing of cement and concrete; should be accommodated within this designated area. The effects of slope on the movement of potentially harmful liquid spillages towards or into protected areas have been considered. Arrangements should be made in the storage area to ensure no spillages are capable of running into or blown onto tree rooting areas. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bund compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is a multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. Planting: Information As stated in BS 5837:2012, regular maintenance of newly planted trees is of particular importance for at least three years during the critical post-planting period and might, where required by site conditions, planning requirements or legal agreement, be necessary for five years or more. Please refer to BS 8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape Recommendations.
Page 58
Page 38 Wildlife: Information Wildlife is protected in law and it is a legal requirement that Bats, and nesting birds or other protected species are not disturbed. Tree removal works should be undertaken out with the bird nesting season or alternatively, following a thorough inspection of the trees to be removed including conducting an aerial inspection if necessary. The presence of dense ivy on trees will require the specific requirement to check the presence of bird nests between March and the end of September. Tree Surgery: Information All tree work should it become necessary will be agreed and carried out in line with BS 3998:2010 (Recommendations for Tree Works). Recommendations Tree Contractors - Management Recommendations & Control measures: 1. All tree surgery operations are governed by the British Standard 3998, “Recommendations for Tree Works”. Contractors employed must be required to comply with this standard, and any future pruning works should be conducted by a fully qualified and fully insured, reputable Arboricultural contractor. Such a contractor should provide evidence of insurance and qualifications for all classes of tree surgery operations. 2. A method statement and risk assessment should be requested for inspection prior to the commencement of works. 3. The general tree protection measures shall apply to the tree surgery teams. 4. All contractor vehicles to be parked outside the (Construction Exclusion Zone –CEZ). 5. No re-fuelling of machinery to take place within the CEZ and not within 10m of the CEZ or uphill of it. 6. Re-inspections should be conducted annually, and it is advised that the timing of tree inspection timing should be varied for the most comprehensive results. Monitoring In accordance with item 6.3 of BS5837:2012, the site and associated development should be monitored regularly by a competent Arboriculturist to ensure that the tree protection measures are complied with. Post Development Implications The design of the development should aim to ensure no future pressures for tree removal arise.
Page 59
Page 39 Report limitations 1. The survey is only concerned with the arboriculture aspects of the site. 2. The report is based on visual inspections conducted from ground level with the purpose of categorising trees in relation to design, demolition and construction and does not provide reliable data on tree safety. This report is not, nor should it be taken to be, a full or thorough assessment of the health and safety of trees on or adjacent to the site, and therefore it is recommended that detailed tree inspections of retained trees are undertaken on a regular basis with the express purpose of complying with the landowner’s duty of care and satisfying health and safety requirements. 3. The statements made in this report do not take account of the effects of extremes of climate, vandalism or accident, whether physical, chemical or fire. 4. The authority of this report ceases within one year from the date of the survey or when any site conditions change, soil levels are altered near trees, tree work undertaken, or following severe weather occurrences which supersede the current validity of the report. 5. The validity, accuracy and findings of this report will be directly related to the accuracy of the information made available prior to and during the inspection process. No checking of independent third-party data will be undertaken. 6. Any observations that are made regarding the condition of built structures and hydrology are from a laypersons view. The legal property on which the trees stand is not assessed. 7. The report contains Visual Tree Inspections undertaken from ground level. Visual inspections relate only to those parts of the tree which are visible. Roots are not inspected and during summer when trees are in leaf parts of the canopy may not be visible. Where a tree or parts of a tree could not be inspected due to epicormic growth, ivy or restricted access, liability is not accepted. Only the visible pathogens are recorded; this does not confirm the absence of other pathogens but that no fungal fruiting bodies, or other signs, were visible at the time of the survey. Ayrshire Tree Surgeons cannot accept any liability in connection with the following: I. A tree which has not been subject to a full and thorough inspection. II. For any part of a tree that is not visible from the ground near the tree. III. Where excavations have taken place within the rooting area of a tree. IV. Branch or limb failure resulting from conditions associated with Summer Branch Drop. V. The effect of extreme weather events, climate, vandalism or accident, whether physical, chemical or fire.
Page 60
No embedded text on this page.
Page 61
No embedded text on this page.
Page 62
Page 42 Appendix 2: References British Standards Institute. (2012). Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations BS5837:2012BSI, London. British Standards Institute. (2010). Recommendations for Tree Work BS 3998:2010 BSI, London. Working near OHPL https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/gs6.pdf and https://www.hse.gov.uk/treework/safety-topics/power-lines.htm. Tree Preservation Orders, A Guide to the Law and Good Practice (2005). Department for Communities and Local Government Lonsdale D. (1999). Research for Amenity Trees No 7: Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, HMSO, London. Mattheck & Breloer H. (1994). Research for Amenity Trees No.4: The Body Language of Trees, HMSO, London. NHBC Standards (2007) Chapter 4.2 ‘Building Near Trees’. National House-Building Council. NJUG 4 Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees. Issued 16 November 2007. STROUTS R.G. & WINTER T.G. (1984), Diagnosis of ill health in trees, HMSO Publications, London SHIGO A.L. (1991), Modern Arboriculture, Shigo and Trees Associates Hazards from Trees – A General Guide ISBN 0-85538-514-6 Tree Felling – Getting Permission. Forestry Commission and free to download from their website www.forestry.gov.uk Trees and the Law ISBN 0-900978-15-5 Published by the Arboricultural Association Tel: 01794 68717 Institute of Chartered Foresters Tel: 0121 225 2705
Page 63
8th March 2024 North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE To whom it may concern, Having been advised of the Notice of Review making application for the decision to refuse application 23/00697/PP: Site to North West of Eglinton House, Kilwinning to be reviewed by the Council’s Local Review Body, the residents of Knightsbridge House collectively wish to make the following representations in response to the submitted Appeal report: With regard to the objection raised in relation to Policy1(CountrysideObjective), the Appeal document states: 5.3 Currently the applicant can legally offer the site for camping for payment for up to 28 days in a calendar year without the need for approval. 5.4 Within the Scottish right to roam legislation my client is able to offer this site as a free venue for wild camping. 5.5 Camping is an acceptable use for the site however the two options available to the applicant offer no viable means of managing the site to regulate for being a good neighbour. 5.6 Temporary permission affords the council an opportunity to manage permissible camping and decide further down the line if this type of development works within the park setting. 5.7 The applicant submits that if the site is suitable for limited and wild camping it would make more sense to offer a managed approach for the benefits of the park. In response: 1. Limited camping is restricted to a maximum of 28 days a year, which would have a considerably lower impact on the environment and local residents than a year round managed glamping site. 2. Similarly, the Scottish Access Code is clear on the concept that wild camping should 'leave no trace' to avoid damaging the natural environment or disturbing local wildlife. It is highly unlikely that there would be significant numbers of people interested in wild camping at this site, so, again, this is a very different proposition to the impact that a year round glamping pod site would have on the locality. There is therefore no logic to the idea that if the site is suitable for limited and wild camping it would make more sense to offer a managed approach, as the concepts are simply not comparable, and the impact of limited/wild camping in portable tents bears no relation to the proposed development of glamping pods. The applicant also states they have no viable means of managing the site to regulate for being a good neighbour if it is used for limited/wild camping, but ultimately they have to give permission to anyone, including wild campers, to camp on the land. Surely that gives more than a fair measure of control over who is permitted to use the land. The applicant would have exactly the same access to oversee and manage the grounds irrespective of who is occupying the site. If they are unable to control the behaviours of a small number of wild campers, they will be equally unable to manage the behaviours of glampers. With regard to the objection raised in relation to Policy2(Placemaking), the Appeal document states: 6.2 The rustic nature of the proposed buildings is in character to the surrounding woodland. The temporary nature of the application (5 years) affords the council time to consider more long term aesthetics should the development be sustainable financially. 6.3 By granting temporary approval for the development the council can manage the impact on the park for a predefined period to determine if any perceived negative impacts resulting from
Page 64
noise and disturbance are present. Block bookings already established in the park are more likely to result in nuisance as they are more likely to bring together groups who are know to one another. Individual booking can be managed to avoid this problem. 6.5 The applicant contends that the development would accord with the Strategic Policy 2 and granting a time limited approval offers the applicant an opportunity to prove the concept. In response: The applicant states repeatedly that this is a temporary application. However, on the submitted planning application 23/00697/PP in response to the question “Is this a temporary permission?”, the applicant has actually ticked “No”. [screenshot taken from Planning Application 23/00697/PP on OPIS] Presumably this is an error, but it needs to be rectified to ensure absolute clarity for the future. The applicant’s response repeatedly refers to the ‘temporary’ nature of the approval being sought, but it seems apparent that the intention from the outset is for a permanent settlement. For structural integrity in an area that can be severely impacted by high winds and storms, the glamping pods will require substantial foundations, as will a toilet/shower block.The planning application states that a sewage treatment plant will be installed and the site will have a mains water connection. None of the above are conducive to a temporary development and cannot be easily dismantled. We are concerned that should so-called ‘temporary’ permission be granted, at the end of the proposed temporary development period the applicant will be counting on the permanence of the structures as an argument in favour of retaining and further developing the settlement irrespective of any adverse impact that has become evident. From the perspective of the local residents, 5 years is not a temporary time-frame and it gives us considerable concern that there would be no redress to the expected noise, traffic and general disruption of this development for such a length of time. In responding to the objection in relation to Strategic Policy 2, the Appeal document has focused predominantly on the the development/maintenance/improvement of the woodland. However, the Decision notice states that the proposed development would be contrary to the Safe and Pleasant quality of Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking) because: The proposed tourism use on the site would be likely to result in adverse noise and disturbance, the effects of which would have a negative impact on the established amenity of the area and its residents This does not appear to have been addressed at all in the Appeal document. The Review Body will be aware from the original representations that there were a considerable number of concerns raised about the impact of increased traffic on the current road. The suggestion that this development will have far less impact than the block bookings at the existing camping site is irrelevant as that campsite is not accessed via the private road on which the planned glamping site is situated. It was pointed out in many of the original representations that the site is on a private road and there does not appear to be any evidence that permission for access has been sought, or that any agreement regarding future financial/other consideration to maintain the road has been put in place. The Roads consultation response raised no objections from North Ayrshire council simply because, as they pointed out, they do not own the road and therefore are not in a position to object. Does the applicant have express permission from the current owner of the road to use it for commercial purposes? Based on these observations we do not feel that this development in any way accords with the Strategic Policy 2 and granting a time limited approval is simply a back door route to getting a permanent structure in place.
Page 65
With regard to the objection raised in relation to Policy11(Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes), the Appeal document states: 8.1 Site is located within the park. The land surrounding the site is mainly agricultural and used for livestock and the Pony Partnership. This development will have limited, if any, impact on the historical setting and to suggest that it brings down the character of the park is humorous verging on hysterical. 8.2 The applicant submits that raising this issue is irrelevant to the argument as the main Historical features of the park are a substantial distance from the site. Not withstanding this the buildings are within the forested area and are screened, mostly from the park. In response: The objection raised in relation to Policy 11 stated that the removal of a large number of trees and other vegetation as a result of the development of the land would not be compatible with the proper management of the historic landscape because it would, amongst other things, fragment the woodland area on this historic western approach route to Eglinton castle. The applicant has themselves acknowledged that trees and vegetation will need to be cleared. Furthermore, the planning drawings show a significant portion of the site given over to a car park at the front of the site. These developments will directly and considerably impact the western approach road. The derisory tone of the applicant’s response in suggesting that a degree of respect for the historic setting is hysterical does not bode well for a sensitive development in this historic landscape. We would like the Review Body to consider these additional representations, together with the considerable number of original representations, and uphold the existing refusal of the planning permission. Yours Faithfully, Residents of Knightsbridge House: Ms L Sutherland Mr C McBlain Mrs P McBlain Mr S Hunt Ms T Howe Mr K Tulpin Ms R Campbell Mrs C McColl Ms K Wilson Ms S Alexander Mr R Woodhouse
Page 66
Hi Diane, Sincere apologies for late submission. My wife and I still object to the planning application 23/00697/PP In addition to all of our reasons given in our previous comments we would like to make 2 additional new comments. 1. The developer is under investigation by Scottish Forestry. It is our understanding that Scottish Forestry are investigating the developer. It may be of interest to the Committee to find out if this investigation has implications relating to any temporary approval of this appeal. 2. Surface water run off from the site onto main road into the park is becoming a hazard - photos attached. Kind regards, Joe and Helen Broussard
Page 67
No embedded text on this page.
Page 68
No embedded text on this page.
Page 69
Subject: Re: Planning Application: 23/00697/PP: Site to North West of Eglinton House, Kilwinning Diane Please find below my clients response to the representation. North Ayrshire Council Policy 1 If land is left open there is no management or control, over wild camping that is an irrefutable fact. Wild camping is common within the park and it seems logical if a private site were left open, and the Rangers have no authority, then campers will migrate to that area of the park. While wild camping has a tread lightly approach and litter should be taken off site. If this was a realistic policy which everyone adhered to there would be no requirement for litter patrols in towns and on road sides. Where humans roam litter follows that is an absolute fact. Paying guests are more easily managed and better managements creates better guests. Policy 2 The application lodged on the portal has a facility to copy a previous application. Both the applicant and the agent are dyslexic and in undertaking the filling of the application form both missed the box to tick however stated in writing on the form that this was for a temporary permission. The intention therefore was clear. This was probably an oversight by the planning officer as the council was fully aware of the agents condition and as the application was clearly assessed on full permission being permanent. There is, therefore, an argument for failing to make reasonable adjustment contrary to the Equality Act. With temporary approval being granted the applicant is determined that the business model works and the applicant will be able to prove this. Proving the business model also clarifies the concerns raised by the dissenters without any future risk. If the project doesn’t work then the land will be returned to its previous state. If it does then the area will be enriched by it and everyone benefits. The roads department have clarified that 7 additional cars on the road within the park will not have a major impact on the park. Policy 11 Removal of the trees is necessary for the health of the remaining trees. As stated above the Agent and Applicant are both dyslexic and therefore the tone may be understood by the objectors to be derisory however this is not the case and is probably a misinterpretation of the facts the agent was imparting. As a more modern architect the agent is sympathetic to historical structures but they should be a source of inspiration never a barrier to development or progress. With the exception of Eglinton House the surrounding land is a commercial enterprise. Within this area of the park in addition to agriculture operates numerous enterprises including but not limited to Weiston House Kennels, Pony Partnership, and Kilwinning Model Railway Club. Additionally the residents of Knightsbridge House purchased their properties less than 150 metres of a much larger camping site which has little in management control and are complaining about a managed site more that 700m away. Simon Ash (Director) Ash Architectural.
Page 70
REPORT OF HANDLING Reference No: 23/00697/PP Proposal: Tourism development comprising the erection of 7 no. glamping pods, shower/toilet block and the formation of a car park and footpaths Location: Site To North West Of Eglinton House, Kilwinning, Ayrshire, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDP Allocation: Countryside/Rural Community LDP Policies: SP1 - The Countryside Objective / Strategic Policy 2 / Detailed Policy 10 - Listed Buildings / Detailed Policy 11 - Historic Gardens / Detailed Policy 14- Green & Bue Infrastr / Detailed Policy 15- Landscape & Seascape / Detailed Policy 29 - Energy Infrastructu / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consultations: Yes Neighbour Notification: Neighbour Notification carried out on 12.10.2023 Neighbour Notification expired on 02.11.2023 Advert: Setting of Listed Building Published on:- 18.10.2023 Expired on:- 08.11.2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Applications: 22/00530/PP for Tourism development comprising the erection of 7 no. glamping pods, office, shower/toilet block, workshop and single storey dwelling house to include the formation of associated access road and parking, drainage infrastructure, tree removal and landscaping works Application Refused on 13.09.2022 Appeal History Of Site: None Relevant Development Plan Policies SP1 - The Countryside Objective The Countryside Objective We recognise that our countryside areas play an important role in providing homes, employment and leisure opportunities for our rural communities. We need to protect our valuable environmental assets in the countryside while Appendix 4
Page 71
23/00697/PP promoting sustainable development which can result in positive social and economic outcomes. We want to encourage opportunities for our existing rural communities and businesses to grow, particularly on Arran and Cumbrae, and to support these areas so that they flourish. We also recognise that, in general, countryside areas are less well suited to unplanned residential and other developments because of their lack of access to services, employment and established communities. We will seek to protect our prime and locally important agricultural land from development except where proposals align with this spatial strategy. In principle, we will support proposals outwith our identified towns and villages for: a) expansions to existing rural businesses and uses such as expansions to the brewery and distillery based enterprises in the area. b) ancillary development for existing rural businesses and uses, including housing for workers engaged in agriculture or forestry. c) developments with a demonstrable specific locational need including developments for renewable energy production i.e. wind turbines, hydroelectric schemes and solar farms. d) tourism and leisure uses, where they would promote economic activity, diversification and sustainable development, particularly where they develop our coastal tourism offer/ infrastructure. e) developments which result in the reuse or rehabilitation of derelict land or buildings (as recognised by the Vacant and Derelict Land Survey) for uses which contribute to the Green and Blue Network such as habitat creation, new forestry, paths and cycle networks. f) sensitive infilling of gap sites consolidating existing developments where it would define/provide a defensible boundary for further expansion. g) small-scale expansion of settlements on Arran and Cumbrae for community led proposals for housing for people employed on the island, where a delivery plan is included, and infrastructure capacity is sufficient or can be addressed by the development and where the proposal meets an identified deficiency in the housing stock and is required at that location. All proposals will be expected to demonstrate the identified housing need cannot be met from the existing housing land supply. h) new housing in the countryside where it is a replacement or converted building or it is a house of exceptional design quality. i) sympathetic additions to existing well-defined nucleated groups of four or more houses (including conversions) in close proximity to one another and visually identifiable as a group with some common feature e.g. shared access. Additions will be limited to 50% of dwellings existing in that group as of January 2005 up to a maximum of four new housing units (rounded down where applicable). Strategic Policy 2 Placemaking Our Placemaking policy will ensure we are meeting LOIP priorities to make North Ayrshire safer and healthier by ensuring that all development contributes to making quality places. The policy also safeguards, and where possible enhances environmental quality through the avoidance of unacceptable adverse environmental or amenity impacts. We expect that all applications for planning permission meet the six qualities of successful places, contained in this policy. This is in addition to establishing the principle of development in accordance with Strategic Policy 1: Spatial Strategy.
Page 72
23/00697/PP These detailed criteria are generally not repeated in the detailed policies section of the LDP. They will apply, as appropriate, to all developments. Six qualities of a successful place Distinctive The proposal draws upon the positive characteristics of the surrounding area including landscapes, topography, ecology, skylines, spaces and scales, street and building forms, and materials to create places with a sense of identity. Welcoming The proposal considers the future users of the site and helps people to find their way around, for example, by accentuating existing landmarks to create or improve views (including sea views), locating a distinctive work of art in a notable place or making the most of gateway features to and from the development. It should also ensure that appropriate signage and lighting is used to improve safety and illuminate attractive buildings. Safe and Pleasant The proposal creates attractive places by providing a sense of security, including by encouraging activity, considering crime rates, providing a clear distinction between private and public space, creating active frontages and considering the benefits of natural surveillance for streets, paths and open spaces. The proposal creates a pleasant, positive sense of place by promoting visual quality, encouraging social and economic interaction and activity, and by considering the place before vehicle movement. The proposal respects the amenity of existing and future users in terms of noise, privacy, sunlight/daylight, smells, vibrations, glare, traffic generation, and parking. The proposal sufficiently investigates and responds to any issues of ground instability. Adaptable The proposal considers future users of the site and ensures that the design is adaptable to their needs. This includes consideration of future changes of use that may involve a mix of densities, tenures, and typologies to ensure that future diverse but compatible uses can be integrated including the provision of versatile multi- functional greenspace. Resource Efficient The proposal maximises the efficient use of resources. This can be achieved by re- using or sharing existing resources and by minimising their future depletion. This includes consideration of technological and natural means such as flood drainage systems, heat networks, solar gain, renewable energy and waste recycling as well as use of green and blue networks. Easy to Move Around and Beyond The proposal considers the connectedness of the site for people before the movement of motor vehicles, by prioritising sustainable and active travel choices, such as walking, cycling and public transport and ensuring layouts reflect likely desire lines, through routes and future expansions. Detailed Policy 10 - Listed Buildings Policy 10: Listed Buildings
Page 73
23/00697/PP We will support proposals for the re-use and restoration of a Listed Building where the special architectural or historical interest of the building is preserved and enhanced. This can include the restoration of original features which have previously been lost due to development or demolition. The layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use of any development affecting a Listed Building or its setting should be appropriate to the character and appearance of the listed building. Enabling development may be acceptable where it can be clearly shown to be the only means of preventing the loss of the asset and securing its long-term future. Any development should be the minimum necessary to achieve these aims. The resultant development should be designed and sited carefully to preserve or enhance the character and setting of the historic asset. There is a presumption against the demolition of Listed Buildings and will only be supported in the following exceptional circumstances: i) The building is not of special interest; or ii) The building is incapable of repair and reuse through the submission and verification of a thorough structural condition report produced by a qualified structural engineer; or iii) The repair of the building is not economically viable, and it has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period; or iv) The demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to the wider community economically, socially or environmentally Detailed Policy 11 - Historic Gardens Policy 11: Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes We will promote the development of Landscape Management Plans that seek to prioritise the preservation and enhancement of our Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes by supporting applications for the Landscape Management Plan Grants Scheme (or similar) to ensure that these important assets are managed appropriately. We will only support development proposals affecting Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes and their setting when they are in line with Landscape Management Plans or otherwise preserves and enhances their importance. Development proposals should also seek to preserve important vistas to, from or within the Historic Garden and Designed Landscape. Gardens and Designed Landscapes can be fragile and are easily damaged or lost if not properly managed. We also recognise that these landscapes are dynamic, and change is inevitable. Change may also be desirable where proposals preserve and enhance the Inventory of Designed Landscapes. Detailed Policy 14-Green & Bue Infrastr Policy 14: Green and Blue Infrastructure All proposals should seek to protect, create, enhance and/or enlarge our natural features and habitats which make up our green and blue infrastructure (including open space), ensuring no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts occur.
Page 74
23/00697/PP Green and blue infrastructure should be multi-functional, accessible and integral to its local circumstances. For example, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) have the potential to play a key role in the delivery of meaningful blue and green infrastructure, providing amenity and improving biodiversity as well as providing a sustainable flood risk solution. We will require details of the proposed arrangements for the long-term management and maintenance of green infrastructure, and associated water features, to form a key part of any proposal. Our Open Space Strategy (2016-2026) highlights the need for an audit which identifies valued and functional green and blue infrastructure or open space capable of being brought into use to meet local needs. We will support the temporary use of unused or underused land as green infrastructure including where it consists of advanced structure planting to create landscape frameworks for future development. Support will be given to proposals which seek to enhance biodiversity from new development where possible, including the restoration of degraded habitats and the avoidance of further fragmentation or isolation of habitats. We will also support proposals that are in accordance with the vision and outcomes of the Central Scotland Green Network as well as those of the Garnock Connections Project. Detailed Policy 15-Landscape & Seascape Policy 15: Landscape and Seascape We will support development that protects and/or enhances our landscape/seascape character, avoiding unacceptable adverse impacts on our designated and non- designated landscape areas and features. In particular, we will consider the following: a) National Scenic Areas Development that affects the North Arran National Scenic Area including the need to protect existing sport and recreation interests, will only be supported where: i) the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised; or ii) any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. b) Special Landscape Areas We will only support development which affects Special Landscape Areas where it would not have an unacceptable impact on their special character, qualities and setting. c) Wild Land We will only support development within Wild Land areas where any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation. d) Local Landscape Features Where appropriate, development should take into consideration its individual and cumulative impacts on landscape features, including: i) patterns of woodlands, fields, hedgerows and trees; ii) lochs, ponds, watercourses, wetlands, the coast and wider seascape; iii) settlement setting, including approaches to settlements;
Page 75
23/00697/PP iv) the setting of green network corridors, such as important transport routes and the cycle and footpath network; v) historic, natural and recreational features of interest, skylines and hill features, including important views to, from and within them. For all development with the potential to have an impact on either Landscape Character or Landscape features (including their setting), appropriate mitigation measures should be considered as part of any planning application. Where there is potential for development to result in significant adverse landscape/visual impact, a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) will be required. The Ayrshire Landscape Character Assessment (SNH, 1998) and North Ayrshire Settlement Development Strategy (Entec, 2008) provide further information on designations such as Local Landscape Character Areas and the Potential Limit of Development Expansion areas as shown on the map on page 81 and on our online proposals map. These landscape assessment documents, and any new or updated landscape assessments, will be key considerations in determining whether development proposals would be acceptable within the landscape. Detailed Policy 29 - Energy Infrastructu Policy 29: Energy Infrastructure Development We will support development proposals for energy infrastructure development, including wind, solar, tidal, cropping and other renewable sources, where they will contribute positively to our transition to a low carbon economy and have no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, taking into consideration (including cumulatively) the following: Environmental o Communities and individual dwellings - including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker; o Water quality; o Landscape - including avoiding unacceptable adverse impacts on our landscape designations; o Effects on the natural heritage - including birds; o Carbon rich soils including peat; o Impacts on the historic environment - including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Community o Establishing the use of the site for energy infrastructure development; o providing a net economic impact - including socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities; o Scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets; o Public access - including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes identified in the National Planning Framework; o Impacts on tourism and recreation; o Specific locational opportunities for energy storage/generation. Public Safety o Greenhouse gas emissions; o Aviation and defence interests and seismological recording;
Page 76
23/00697/PP o Telecommunications and broadcasting installations - particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised; radio telemetry interference and below ground assets; o Road traffic and adjacent trunk roads; o Effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk including drinking water quality and quantity (to both the public and private water supplies); o Decommissioning of developments - including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration and aftercare. Proposals should include redundancy plans which will demonstrate how apparatus will be timeously removed as reasonably soon as the approved scheme ceases operation. There may be a requirement for financial bonds to ensure that decommissioning can be achieved. Taking into consideration the above, proposals for wind turbine developments should accord with the Spatial Framework (as mapped) and consider the current Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Farm Development in North Ayrshire. This study will be used as a point of reference for assessing all wind energy proposals including definitions of what small to large scale entails. Buildings: Low and Zero Carbon Generating Technology Proposals for all new buildings will be required to demonstrate that at least 10% of the current carbon emissions reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating technologies. A statement will be required to be submitted demonstrating compliance with this requirement. The percentage will increase at the next review of the local development plan. This requirement will not apply to: 1. Alterations and extensions to buildings 2. Change of use or conversion of buildings 3. Ancillary buildings that stand alone and cover an area less than 50 square metres 4. Buildings which will not be heated or cooled, other than by heating provided solely for frost protection. 5. Buildings which have an intended life of less than two years. Description The application seeks planning permission to develop a tourism facility comprising 7 glamping pods, a shower/toilet block, footpaths and car parking within a woodland site to the west of Eglinton House at Eglinton Country Park in the rural area to the southeast of Kilwinning. At present, the site consists of a small woodland area edged with fencing approximately 1m in height which adjoins horse grazing land to the west (across a minor road) and to the north. There is a dwellinghouse on the land immediately to the east, a category B listed building known as Eglinton House, which is set within densely wooded grounds. The grazing land to the west includes a timber stables
Page 77
23/00697/PP block and a parking area. To the south is the private access road leading from the A737 at Irvine Road, Kilwinning to the new housing development at Eglinton Stables and Swan Mews, across which is an area of maintained grassland. The private access road is also a walking route into the country park from Kilwinning. According to the submitted documents, the development involves the removal of around half of the trees within the woodland in order to clear land for the building works and access/parking arrangements. A tree survey submitted with the application, dating from June 2022, states that most of the trees in the woodland are self-seeded sycamores of around 30 years in age, that the trees are not good specimens and would have a life span of 20 - 30 years given the crowded growing conditions. The applicants advise that a number of trees need to be removed on safety grounds, irrespective of the proposed development. They also advise that replacement trees and hedgerows would be planted. An inspection of the site which took place during November 2023 indicated that many of the trees and vegetation illustrated in the submitted tree survey report have already been felled. Whilst some of the felling has taken place below the overhead electricity line which runs through the site, evidently for safety reasons, the majority of the land that has cleared of trees is not within the immediate vicinity of the overhead line corridor. A sign has been posted on the site stating that "due to sycamore dieback and fungal rot there will be forest management operations taking place to improve the safety and quality of the trees. There will be restocking of the land with native trees once the affected tree stock has been felled." It should be noted that the tree survey has not been updated since the time of the previous planning application for the site, which was considered during 2022 (ref. 22/00530/PP). The tree survey did not indicate the presence of many diseased trees on the site. The proposed glamping pods would be located at the north end of the site. There would be seven in total, with footpath access from a proposed car park at the south west corner of the site. Each pod would provide a single room with space for a double bed and some indoor activity space. None of the pods would have a WC or shower room, since these facilities would be provided at a communal facility. Three designs are proposed, all clad using timber with shingle roofs. Two designs would have curved roof profiles, the other would have an asymmetrical gabled roof. The only other building proposed would be a communal shower/toilet block. This would be sited just south of the central part of the site, approximately 7m from the eastern site boundary with Eglinton House. The building would consist of WC and shower facilities for male, female and disabled visitors, as well as outside sinks with weather protection from the roof overhead. The building design would be a conventional timber cabin with gable ends, approximately 4m in height to ridge level. The shower block would be linked by a footpath to the main path leading from the car park to the glamping pods. In addition to the tree survey report, the applicant has prepared and submitted the following documents in support of the application: Habitat Report The report, dated 9th June 2022, follows a preliminary ecological appraisal which was conducted at the site and immediately surrounding area in May 2022. It reports on findings and considers both the vegetation on the site as well as surveys for protected species. During the survey, which the author described as a 'snapshot', no
Page 78
23/00697/PP protected habitats were found although there was evidence of the site being used as a route for animals passing through. The report concluded with a series of recommendations for project progression as well as general biodiversity enhancement. (Note: The habitat report is the same as was submitted with the 2022 planning application, and has not been updated. The author of the report states that its findings were valid from one year from the date of issue). Coal Mining Report (provided by The Coal Authority) The report advises that the property is in a surface area that could be affected by underground mining in 4 seams of coal at 40m to 100m depth, and last worked in 1902. Any movement in the ground due to coal mining activity associated with these workings should have stopped by now. In addition the property is in an area where the Coal Authority believes there is coal at or close to the surface. This coal may have been worked at some time in the past. The potential presence of coal workings at or close to the surface should be considered, particularly prior to any site works or future development activity, as ground movement could still be a risk. Note: a coal mining risk assessment for the proposed development has not been submitted. In terms of the relevant planning history for the site, an application seeking planning permission for a tourism development comprising the erection of 7 no. glamping pods, office, shower/toilet block, workshop and single storey dwelling house to include the formation of associated access road and parking, drainage infrastructure, tree removal and landscaping works was refused permission on 13th September 2022. The decision was not subject to local review. The application requires to be considered in terms of Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective), Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking), Policy 10 (Listed Buildings), Policy 11 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes), Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure), Policy 15 (Landscape and Seascape) and Policy 29 (Low and Zero Carbon Energy). National Planning Framework 4 is also of relevance. Consultations and Representations The application was subject to the statutory neighbour notification process, and included a notice in a local newspaper. 35 representations were received, with 11 expressing support and 24 opposing the proposals. Summary of representations in support of the development: 1. The development would be a valuable addition to bring much needed tourist accommodation to Kilwinning and would help local businesses not only Kilwinning but the surrounding towns. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 2. The proposal would add to the aesthetic landscape and create simple, yet pleasing to the eye, tourist accommodation for visitors wishing to stay within a beautiful setting in preference to a cement carbuncle in the local towns and villages. We should all consider the environment and the impact any planning application has on our countryside, and this has obviously been important to the applicant in choosing glamping pods rather than using materials which may be detrimental to the countryside. Footpaths for walkers, cyclists and perhaps horses, can only benefit and boost tourism in the area.
Page 79
23/00697/PP Response: Noted. See Analysis. 3. This would tidy up woodland area and bring sanctuary to mental health and new habitat for wild life. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 4. The area is really needing development, and is currently rather sad looking. The proposed development will be a massive benefit to the community and the park. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 5. The plan appears to be mindful of the area and not too obtrusive. It is also relatively small in scale and so will have little to no impact on local roads and congestion. Response: Noted. See Analysis. Summary of representations objecting to the development: 1. This application is substantially the same as the previous refusal. Loss of woodland and trees at a prominent location within the parkland. Considerable tree felling and vegetation removal has already taken place since the last planning application was refused in 2022. It is claimed that many of the trees which have been felled were healthy and free of disease. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 2. Adverse impacts on a protected greenspace including loss of habitats at an important area for a large variety of wildlife. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 3. Adverse impacts on nearby residents, horses and wildlife. The lack of on-site management for a facility of this type would give rise to a range of problems for residents, horses and wildlife such as increased noise/disturbance, anti-social behaviour, bright light during night time, refuse disposal and privacy impacts. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 4. Unacceptable traffic impacts on a single track private road used by many for walking to/from Eglinton Country Park, leading to a greater risk of accidents because of increased traffic. Traffic is already increasing because of new housing development taking place at Swan Mews, the development of which has restarted during 2023. The proposed parking area would not appear to have sufficient turning space, leading to more safety issues on the road. Response: Noted. See Consultations and Analysis. 5. Adverse impacts on the setting and privacy of Eglinton House, a unique category B listed building. Response: Noted. See Analysis.
Page 80
23/00697/PP 6. Adverse impacts on the Designed Landscape, representing a loss of its cultural history. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 7. There is already a designated area for camping and motorhomes at Eglinton Country Park which is accessed from a two way road and is supported by the country park facilities. There is no need or demand for this development, which would be better suited in open land the countryside away from existing housing rather than being squashed into a small woodland in a beautiful country park. Response: The application requires to be determined on its specific merits against the provisions of the Local Development Plan and other material considerations. 8. The development is being progressed by stealth, with a considerable number of trees and other vegetation having been removed to clear the ground to make way for the proposals. The economic benefits to the area are questionable and would be very limited. This development is contrary to the Local Development Plan. Response: See Analysis. Consultations Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland - Given that the development is within a designated designed landscape, a degree of care is required. While the tree survey is to be welcomed, we would question whether the impact of the development on the designed landscape can be assessed fully in the absence of detailed proposals for what is to happen to the existing trees and any proposed replacement planting. Response: Noted. See Analysis. Kilwinning Community Council - Objects. The loss of the established woodland is not justified. There is no need for development on this site and it is contrary to the Local Development Plan. The proposed buildings do not complement the historic character of Eglinton Castle and the Country Park. The development is not in keeping with the distinctive environment of the Park, which is listed on the Register of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Losing trees and installing glamping pods would represent a change to the character of the park. Visitors enjoy the Park and its facilities during the day whereas this development would result in the Park being used at night which could set a precedent with unknown consequences. The Police already have to deal with anti-social behaviour in the Park on occasions. Response: Noted. See Analysis. NAC Arboricultural Officer - It is apparent from visiting the site that a large number of trees have already been removed. The location of tree removals in the main mirror the footprint of the proposed development. Given the number of trees removed and the large gaps created within the woodland, those trees that remain are now more prone to windthrow. Ground works have also been carried out to remove the stumps and as such almost half of the woodland has been cleared. This may also have affected the roots of those trees that remain. Given the extent of these works and how they have impacted on the woodland no further comments can be made regarding the suitability of incorporating the proposed development within the woodland: With the
Page 81
23/00697/PP exception that placing any structures near those retained trees would come with a greater element of risk as most of the remaining trees are more exposed to wind given the removal works. Response: The above matters were raised with the applicant's agent in order to provide the opportunity for a response (eg. in the form of an updated tree survey). However, no update to the original tree survey has been forthcoming. NAC Active Travel and Transportation - no objections. The access road serving the proposed development is currently a private road under the ownership and control of a third party (the Swan Mews developer). The road was intended to be brought up to an adoptable standard however the developer (or their successor) to date has not followed the correct procedure under the Road Construction Consent (RCC) process to enable the Council to adopt the road. Unless the developer or their successor re- engages in the RCC process, the route is likely to remain under their private control. As such, the applicant should discuss matters with the third party/developer. Response: Noted. In the event of planning permission being granted, conditions could be attached to ensure the above requirements are met. Scottish Water - no objections. There is sufficient water supply capacity to serve the proposed development. There is currently sufficient capacity for a foul only connection to service the proposed development. Response: Noted. No information for the treatment and disposal of waste water and surface water has been detailed in the submitted plans or supporting information. In the event of planning permission being granted, a condition could be attached to secure the necessary details. Scottish Wildlife Trust - is concerned that many trees have been felled in this woodland site, and some stumps also removed prior to making the planning application. This will inevitably have appreciably altered the ecology of the area before commencement of the work detailed in the application. Response: Noted. See Analysis. Analysis In terms of the adopted LDP, the site is located within a rural area allocated as countryside. The proposal therefore requires to be considered in terms of Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) and Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking) in addition to Policy 10 (Listed Buildings), Policy 11 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes), Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure), Policy 15 (Landscape and Seascape) and Policy 29 (Low and Zero Carbon Energy). NPF 4 will also be considered following analysis of the relevant LDP policies. Criterion (d) of Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) (SP1) states that tourism and leisure uses, where they would promote economic activity, diversification and sustainable development, particularly where they develop North Ayrshire's coastal tourism offer/infrastructure will be supported in principle. In this instance, it is proposed to develop 7 glamping pods which would contribute to the area's tourist offer.
Page 82
23/00697/PP Whilst noting the potential tourism and economic benefits which could accrue from developments of this nature, however limited, it is not considered that a previously undeveloped woodland site within a historic designed landscape on the edge of Eglinton Country Park represents an appropriate location for a glamping development due to the extensive loss of trees and environmental impacts the proposed development would result in. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposals would represent a sustainable form of development given the substantial loss of flora and woodland cover, the adverse landscape and visual impacts on the setting of the nearby listed building, and on the designed landscape. The adverse environmental impacts the proposed development would directly result in are not justified by any economic benefits which might arise. It is noted that considerable tree felling has taken place on the land since the 2022 planning application was determined. It is understood that earlier in 2023, Scottish Forestry granted felling permission for parts of the woodland, with restocking of the trees required by 2026. The proposed development would involve some land having to be permanently left clear of trees and other planting to provide space. The type of use proposed would involve members of the public spending time in the woodland for overnight stays, with consequent impacts on its potential to regenerate for nature and wildlife. Criterion (c) covers proposed developments with a specific locational need. It is not considered that the proposals have a site specific locational need, other than to provide a setting for the glamping pods. There is nothing in the application which could not be developed elsewhere. It is not considered that unplanned sporadic development on this particular parcel of woodland on the fringes of Eglinton Country Park would be in the best interests of the designed landscape character of the area. In summary, it is not considered that the proposed development would accord with Strategic Policy 1. Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking) sets out the Six Qualities of a Successful Place which all planning applications are expected to meet. Its stated purpose is to ensure "all development contributes to making quality places". Strategic Policy 2 also states that "the policy also safeguards, and where possible enhances environmental quality through the avoidance of adverse environmental or amenity impacts." A brief comment on each of the Six Qualities of A Successful Place follows below: Welcoming The proposed development would be sited within a woodland area on one of the main pedestrian/cycle approaches to Eglinton Castle from Kilwinning. The private access also serves a number of houses (with more currently under construction) and equestrian uses. Since the determination of the previous application for the site during 2022, a considerable quantity of the woodland has been removed, which has exposed much of the site to the wider area and alter the established landscape character. Distinctive The proposed glamping pods would have a distinctly 'rustic' character, whereas the other building on the site would be reminiscent of a typical forestry cabin. Safe and Pleasant It is considered that the development has the potential to result in adverse amenity impacts on the adjacent dwelling and the surrounding rural area arising from the presence of visitors staying at the site. The site and surrounding rural area is
Page 83
23/00697/PP presently quiet and largely undisturbed by human activity during the hours of darkness. The proposed tourism use on the site would be likely to result in adverse noise and disturbance, the effects of which would have a negative impact on the established amenity of the area and its residents. Furthermore, woodland loss at the site would have an adverse visual and landscape impact on the setting of the adjacent dwelling, Eglinton House, as well as the character of the designed landscape surrounding Eglinton Castle, which dates back to the early 1800s. In this way, it is considered that the Safe and Pleasant characteristics of the present situation would be diminished. Resource Efficient No information has been provided with respect to renewable energy or waste water treatment for the proposals. However, as noted above, this information could be secured by condition in the event of planning permission being granted. Easy to Move Around and Beyond The site is located in a rural location within walking distance of Kilwinning. Adaptable Not relevant. It is considered that the proposed development would not accord with Strategic Policy 2 primarily on the basis that it would result in adverse impacts on what is presently a Safe and Pleasant undeveloped site within a predominately rural environment. Turning to the relevant detailed policies, the following are of note: Policy 10 (Listed Buildings) Due to the proximity of the site to the category B listed Eglinton House on the neighbouring land to the east of the site Policy 10 requires consideration. The policy states that "the layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use of any development affecting a Listed Building or its setting should be appropriate to the character and appearance of the listed building." Eglinton House, also known as Garden Cottage, dates from 1798. It was built around the time that the Eglinton gardens and landscape were being re-planned and re-planted. The house is single storey with a six sided room at its centre and an attic room above. Eglinton House has a distinct V shape on plan, a centre columned veranda and is finished in red brick with white painted stone dressing. It is described by Historic Environment Scotland as "an attractive estate cottage, at one time the head gardener's dwelling". The house was extended to the west with a modern wing around 13 years ago. It is thus a particularly unique and unusual building, the setting of which greatly benefits from all of the woodland which surrounds it, and not just the woodland within its immediate curtilage. The scale of tree loss involved with the submitted proposals would have a significant adverse impact on the setting of Eglinton House. Tree felling works undertaken to date have already exposed the western side of the Eglinton House curtilage, leaving it open to views from the woodland area that remains. It is not considered that the proposed development would be appropriate in close proximity to Eglinton House. The proposal, therefore, does not accord with Policy 10.
Page 84
23/00697/PP Policy 11 - Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes Historic Environment Scotland (HES) designated Eglinton Castle as an historic garden and designed landscape in 1987. It notes that "the parkland landscape and architectural features make an important contribution to the surrounding scenery. The designed landscape has a rich history in association with the Eglinton family." The historical level of interest is classed by HES as "outstanding." The above policy states that the Council "will only support development proposals affecting Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes and their setting when they are in line with Landscape Management Plans or otherwise preserves and enhances their importance. Development proposals should also seek to preserve important vistas to, from or within the Historic Garden and Designed Landscape. It also notes that "Gardens and Designed Landscapes can be fragile and are easily damaged or lost if not properly managed. We also recognise that these landscapes are dynamic and change is inevitable. Change may also be desirable where proposals preserve and enhance the Inventory of Designed Landscapes." In the absence of a Landscape Management Plan for Eglinton Castle, the main consideration is to ensure that development proposals "preserve and enhance" their importance. It is not considered that the removal of a large number of trees and other vegetation followed by the development of the land in the manner proposed would be in the best interests of this historic landscape. The proposed development would permanently alter the setting for Eglinton House and fragment the woodland area on this historic western approach route to Eglinton Castle. It is not considered that the degree of change proposed would "preserve and enhance" the designed landscape of Eglinton Castle. The proposal, therefore, does not accord with Policy 11. Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) This policy notes that all proposals should seek to protect, create, enhance and/or enlarge our natural features and habitats, and make provision for including new features that would improve biodiversity. The application is supported by both an Arboricultural report and preliminary ecological appraisal, the focus of which has been on tree health and whether or not any protected species were noted during a survey carried out in May 2022. The survey reports are no longer up to date and do not reflect recent changes that have been carried out. As discussed above, it is not considered that the loss of woodland to make way for development is justified. Scottish Forestry issued permission (ref. FPA-10287) on 15th March 2023 for the felling of 0.4 hectares of woodland at the site. The reasons for the felling permission have not been published. However, restocking is required by 15th June 2026. There are no replanting proposals included with the planning application. Policy 15 - Landscape and Seascape Part (d) of this policy notes that, where appropriate, development should take into consideration its individual and cumulative impacts on landscape features, including (i) patterns of woodlands, fields, hedgerows and trees; (v) historic, natural and recreational features of interests, skylines and hill features, including important views to, from and within them. With reference to the Entec Landscape Capacity Study which was commissioned by the Council in 2008, it notes the "presence of small areas of woodland including the Estate Landscape features at the edge of Eglinton Park" and highlights that the "retention of Eglinton Estate Landscape are the principal requirements for the
Page 85
23/00697/PP landscape strategy in this area". Arising from these recommendations, the policies of the LDP act to protect the Designed Landscape around Eglinton Castle given its historic significance for North Ayrshire. It is not considered that the proposed scheme for the site would be compatible with the continued need to protect such assets from loss to inappropriate development. As noted above, Scottish Forestry require the restocking of the woodland by June 2026. Policy 29 (Energy Infrastructure Development (Buildings)) The submitted design statement does not indicate how the proposed buildings would utilise low or zero carbon energy heat and power systems. However, in the event of planning permission being granted, a condition could be attached to address this matter. National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) also requires consideration since this is now part of the development plan (since 13th February 2023). In addition to the national spatial strategy, NPF 4 contains a suite of national planning policies. There are a number of policies of particular relevance to this application. Firstly, Policy 1 of National Planning Policy states that "when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises." Part (a) of Policy 3 states that "development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature-based solutions, where possible." Part (c) states "proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with national and local guidance. Measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development." Policy 5 states that "development proposals will only be supported if they are designed and constructed: i. In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; and ii. In a manner that protects soil from damage including from compaction and erosion, and that minimises soil sealing." Policy 6 states that: "Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in: i. Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition; ii. Adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value, or identified for protection in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy; iii. Fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy; iv. Conflict with Restocking Direction, Remedial Notice or Registered Notice to Comply issued by Scottish Forestry. "c) Development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered."
Page 86
23/00697/PP Policy 7 states that "development proposals affecting nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes will be supported where they protect, preserve or enhance their cultural significance, character and integrity and where proposals will not significantly impact on important views to, from and within the site, or its setting." Policy 20 states that "development proposals in regional and country parks will only be supported where they are compatible with the uses, natural habitats, and character of the park." Finally, Policy 30 states that "development proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation, including caravan and camping sites, in locations identified in the LDP, will be supported." Part (b) of Policy 30 states that "proposals for tourism related development will take into account: i. The contribution made to the local economy; ii. Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors; iii. Impacts on communities, for example by hindering the provision of homes and services for local people; iv. Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas; v. Accessibility for disabled people; vi. Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions; vii. Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. Taking the National Planning Policies collectively, it is noted that tourism facilities and accommodation can be supported in locations identified in the LDP. In this instance, the application site has not been specifically identified for tourism facilities nor accommodation through the North Ayrshire LDP, although it is acknowledged that, in principle, rural locations are considered potentially suitable for tourism developments in terms of the Countryside Objective. A key national policy concern relates to the environmental impacts of development on matters ranging from soil, woodlands, biodiversity, built and natural heritage, carbon emissions through to environmental sustainability. With regard to the impact of works carried out to date on the site, it is noted that the soil has largely been stripped of the long established groundcover vegetation, the consequences of which may have been to increase surface water run-off from the site and reduce biodiversity, at least in the short term. Notably, the National Planning Policies do not support woodland removal unless "they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits" - it is not considered that the proposed development would achieve a public benefit as has been claimed by the applicants, and there is no sound evidence to substantiate the claims made by supporters of the proposal in this respect. Rather, it is considered that the partial loss of an established woodland habitat for the proposed development does not justify any limited local economic benefits which might accrue, especially as there is no identifiable need for such a development on this specific site. The woodland at Eglinton is within one of a limited number of nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes. It is further considered that the proposed development would not be "compatible with the uses, natural habitats, and character" of Eglinton Country Park as a result of woodland loss, habitat fragmentation, adverse amenity impacts and adverse landscape/visual impacts on
Page 87
23/00697/PP the setting of a category B listed building. In summary, it is therefore considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policies as set out in NPF 4 due to the constraints and characteristics of the site. In conclusion, whilst noting that a number of elements have been removed from the proposed development since the earlier application was considered during 2022 (including a dwellinghouse, workshop and office), it is still not considered that the site is appropriate for the revised version of the proposals in terms of the development plan. Given the sensitivities of the site and its location, there are no other material considerations that would warrant a departure from the provisions of the development plan. Accordingly, since there is no convincing justification to grant the application, planning permission should be refused. Decision Refused Case Officer - Mr A Hume
Page 88
23/00697/PP Appendix 1 - Drawings relating to decision Drawing Title Drawing Reference (if applicable) Drawing Version (if applicable) Location Plan A1-00 Block Plan / Site Plan A1-01 Proposed Plans and Elevations A1-05 Proposed Plans and Elevations A1-07 Proposed Plans and Elevations A1-08 Proposed Plans and Elevations A1-08
Page 89
Appendix 5
Page 90
Yvonne Baulk : Head Of Service (Housing & Public Protection) No N/23/00697/PP (Original Application No. N/100583113-003) REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Type of Application: Local Application TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1997, AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING ETC (SCOTLAND) ACT 2006. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 To : Mr & Ms S McLean / Pearce c/o Highstreet Architects Fao Simon Ash 1 Pottery Cottage Coalhall KA6 6ND With reference to your application received on 11 October 2023 for planning permission under the above mentioned Acts and Orders for :- Tourism development comprising the erection of 7 no. glamping pods, shower/toilet block and the formation of a car park and footpaths at Site To North West Of Eglinton House Kilwinning Ayrshire North Ayrshire Council in exercise of their powers under the above-mentioned Acts and Orders hereby refuse planning permission on the following grounds :- 1. The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) in respect of the following: - The extent of tree loss and groundworks would result in the loss of the established woodland character of the site, and would therefore not represent a sustainable form of development; - There is no specific locational need for the development to be located on the site; - No justification been provided to demonstrate that the economic benefits of the development would outweigh its adverse environmental impacts. 2. The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 10 (Listed Buildings) of the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan in terms of its layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use. No consideration has been given in the application to the impact the development would have on the historic setting of Eglinton House, and in relation to the contrasting layout and building character arising from the proposals. 3. The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes) of the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan since it is not considered that the removal of a large number of trees and other vegetation followed by the development of the land in the manner proposed Appendix 6
Page 91
Site To North West Of Eglinton House Kilwinning Ayrshire No N/23/00697/PP would be compatible with the proper management of the historic landscape. The development would permanently alter the setting for Eglinton House and fragment the woodland area on this historic western approach route to Eglinton Castle. It is therefore not considered that the degree of change proposed would "preserve and enhance" the designed landscape of Eglinton Castle. 4. The proposed development would be contrary to the Safe and Pleasant quality of Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking) of the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan in respect of the adverse amenity impacts on the adjacent dwelling and the surrounding area arising from the presence of visitors staying at the site. The site and surrounding rural area is presently quiet and largely undisturbed by human activity during the hours of darkness. The proposed tourism use on the site would be likely to result in adverse noise and disturbance, the effects of which would have a negative impact on the established amenity of the area and its residents. 5. Due to the loss of woodland habitat and associated biodiversity loss, the proposed development does not accord with the following national planning policies as set out in National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 13th February 2023): - Policy 1 (significant weight to be given to the nature and climate crises); - Policy 3 (biodiversity); - Policy 5 (disturbance to soils on undeveloped land); - Policy 7 (protection of nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes); - Policy 20 (development in country parks only supported where they are compatible with the uses, natural habitats, and character of the park). The woodland at Eglinton is within one of a limited number of nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes. It is considered that the proposed development would not be "compatible with the uses, natural habitats, and character" of Eglinton Country Park as a result of woodland loss, habitat fragmentation, adverse amenity impacts and adverse impacts on the setting of a category B listed building. Dated this : 4 December 2023 ......................................................... for the North Ayrshire Council (See accompanying notes)
Page 92
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING ETC (SCOTLAND) ACT 2006. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 – REGULATION 28 Yvonne Baulk : Head Of Service (Housing & Public Protection) FORM 2 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months from the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to Committee Services, Chief Executive's Department, Cunninghame House, Irvine, North Ayrshire, KA12 8EE. 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land's interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.