Agenda Document Pack - Local Review Body - 26/10/2022
North Ayrshire Council · 26 October 2022
Back to Local Review Body — 26 October 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Local Review Body A Meeting of the Local Review Body of North Ayrshire Council will be held in the Council Chambers, Ground Floor, Cunninghame House, Irvine, KA12 8EE on Wednesday, 26 October 2022 at 14:15 to consider the undernoted business. Meeting Arrangements - Hybrid Meetings This meeting will be held on a predominantly physical basis but with provision, by prior notification, for remote attendance by Elected Members in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003. Where possible, the meeting will be live-streamed and available to view at https://north-ayrshire.public- i.tv/core/portal/home. 1 Declarations of Interest Members are requested to give notice of any declarations of interest in respect of items of business on the Agenda. 2 Minutes The accuracy of the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2022 will be confirmed and the Minutes signed in accordance with Paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (copy enclosed). 3 Notice of Review: 22/00408/PP - 2 Lovat Street, Largs Submit report by the Head of Service (Democratic Services) on a Notice of Review submitted by the applicant in respect of a planning application refused by officers under delegated powers (copy enclosed). 4 Urgent Items Any other items that the Chair considers to be urgent. 1
Page 2
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Webcasting Please note: this meeting may be filmed/recorded/live-streamed to the Council's internet site and available to view at https://north-ayrshire.public- i.tv/core/portal/home, where it will be capable of repeated viewing. At the start of the meeting, the Provost/Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed/recorded/live-streamed. You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 2018. Data collected during the webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy, including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site. Generally, the press and public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the Council Chambers, using the press or public seating area or (by invitation) participating remotely in this meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and consenting to the use and storage of those images and sound recordings and any information pertaining to you contained in them for webcasting or training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public. If you do not wish to participate in a recording, you should leave the meeting. This will constitute your revocation of consent. If you have any queries regarding this and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact dataprotectionofficer@north-ayrshire.gov.uk. 2
Page 3
North Ayrshire Council, Cunninghame House, Irvine KA12 8EE Local Review Body Sederunt Robert Foster (Chair) Timothy Billings (Vice-Chair) Scott Davidson Stewart Ferguson Cameron Inglis Amanda Kerr Davina McTiernan Jim Montgomerie Ian Murdoch Chloe Robertson Chair: Apologies: Attending: 3
Page 4
Local Review Body Committee 28 September 2022 Irvine, 28 September 2022 - At a Meeting of the Local Review Body of North Ayrshire Council at 2.40 p.m. involving a combination of participation by remote electronic means and physical attendance within the Council Chambers, Irvine. Present (Physical Participation) Robert Foster, Timothy Billings, Scott Davidson, Stewart Ferguson, Cameron Inglis, Davina McTiernan and Chloé Robertson. Present (Remote Participation) Jim Montgomerie. In Attendance (Physical Participation) A. Gemmell, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning); R. Lynch, Senior Manager (Legal Services) and A. Little and H. Clancy, Committee Services Officers (Chief Executive’s Service). Apologies Amanda Kerr and Ian Murdoch. Chair Councillor Foster in the Chair. 1. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest by Members in terms of Standing Order 11 and Section 5 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors. 2. Minutes The Minute of the meeting of the Local Review Body held on 8 June 2022 were confirmed and the Minutes signed in accordance with Paragraph 7 (1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. 22/00063/PP - Jarvie Plant, Corsehill Mount Road, Dreghorn Submitted report by the Head of Democratic Services on a Notice of Review by the applicant in respect of a planning application refused by officers under delegated powers. The Notice of Review documentation, Planning Officer's Report of Handling, Location Plan and Planning Decision Notice, were provided as appendices to the report. The Planning Adviser to the Local Review Body summarised the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant, the Report of Handling submitted by the appointed officer, the representations received and policies affecting the application. Photographs and plans of the site were displayed. The Planning Adviser referred to the applicant’s request for a site visit and hearing. Agenda Item 2 4
Page 5
The Local Review Body unanimously agreed that (a) a site visit was not required; (b) a hearing be held before the review request was determined, to provide the applicant an opportunity to explain their views and provide information on why (i) the application would not be contrary to the Towns and Villages Objective of Strategic Policy 1 (Spatial Strategy) and Policy 3 (Town Centres and Retail) of the adopted North Ayrshire Local Development Plan; and (ii) the proposal would not undermine the Council’s town centre first principle which gives priority to supporting the social and economic functions of town centres. 4. 22/00292/PP: 15 Pathfoot, Kilwinning Submitted report by the Head of Democratic Services on a Notice of Review by the applicant in respect of a planning application refused by officers under delegated powers. The Notice of Review documentation, Planning Officer's Report of Handling, Location Plan and Planning Decision Notice were provided as appendices to the report. The Planning Adviser to the Local Review Body summarised the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant, the Report of Handling submitted by the appointed officer, the representations received and policies affecting the application. Photographs and plans of the site were displayed. No site visit or hearing had been requested. Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Davidson, moved that the Local Review Body uphold the officer’s decision and refuse planning permission. There being no amendment, the motion was declared carried. The meeting ended at 3.00 p.m. 5
Page 6
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 26 October 2022 Local Review Body Title: Notice of Review: 22/00408/PP - 2 Lovat Street, Largs 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 22/00408/PP - 2 Lovat Street, Largs for a change of use Class 1 to include a dog creche at that address. 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 - Report of Handling; Appendix 3 - Location Plan; Appendix 4 - Planning Decision Notice; Appendix 5 - Further Representations; and Appendix 6 - Applicants Response to Further Representations. 3. Proposals 3.1 The Local Review Body is invited to consider the Notice of Review. Agenda Item 3 6
Page 7
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. Representations received from interested parties or statutory consultees to the planning application are attached at Appendix 5, with Appendix 6 providing the applicant’s response to these representations. Craig Hatton Chief Executive For further information please contact Angela Little, Committee Services Officer, on 01294 324132. Background Papers 0 7
Page 8
Page 1 of 4 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 100595841-001 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 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: * Mrs Lynsey Ewing KA30 8RF United Kingdom Appendix 1 8
Page 9
Page 2 of 4 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 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. 2 LOVAT STREET Change of use required to set up a pet shop with a dog crèche facility. North Ayrshire Council LARGS KA30 9NE 659031 220631 9
Page 10
Page 3 of 4 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) 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? * Please see a full document in the supporting documents section, detailing my reason for appeal. Please find my appeal document in full on the supporting documentation page. 22/00408/PP 27/07/2022 30/05/2022 10
Page 11
Page 4 of 4 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. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mrs Lynsey Ewing Declaration Date: 22/08/2022 11
Page 12
Proposal Details Proposal Name 100595841 Proposal Description Proposed Dog Day Care and Pet Shop Address 2 LOVAT STREET, LARGS, KA30 9NE Local Authority North Ayrshire Council Application Online Reference 100595841-001 Application Status Form complete Main Details complete Checklist complete Declaration complete Supporting Documentation complete Email Notification complete Attachment Details Notice of Review System A4 Appeal for planning permission Attached A0 Notice_of_Review-2.pdf Attached A0 Application_Summary.pdf Attached A0 Notice of Review-001.xml Attached A0 12
Page 13
Planning Appeal 22/00408/PP I would like to appeal on the basis that the application has been refused being supposedly contrary to the LDP "Safe and Pleasant" quality for a successful place. I dispute this and hope that the document that follows helps to support my appeal and allows you to explore my points in a non-biased way. The current site and the proposed development of a dog day care would be an improvement to the current land. Should, as was suggested in the planning comments, the unit should continue to operate under Class 1 retail, it is very likely that this remains as is currently - wasteland. This green area is utilised by the surrounding locals as an area to walk their dog which has led to unwanted dog waste being left. As you may be aware there is a significant lack of public bins on Irvine Road and the impact of this sees number 2 Lovat Street suffering the brunt of this and attracts both general and dog waste. The previous occupier had troubles having the grass cut as the appointed contractor often refused to cut the grass due to the volume of dog waste on the grass area. In addition, the property does not have adequate street lighting in close proximity and therefore attracts anti- social behaviour. More specifically, the side of the property has been used as a teen drinking area with glass bottles and cans being dumped frequently. Again, the proposed plans would deter this behaviour due to the constructed fence. A local councillor was successful in objecting to the erection of a 5G box to the side of the property as this was believed to attract further unwanted behaviour of this nature and risk public being given a basis to climb onto the roof of the property. Furthermore, there were 15 neighbour notifications with less than half of these resulting in objections. -Largs Community Council stated it would add to the amenity of the town and again at the LCC meeting on 18/8/22 the matter was discussed, and the overall thought is that my business would be a great asset to our town. -Environmental Health - had no objection - Transport Scotland - had no objection Yet, it was stated "on balance" that the proposal is not held to "meet the quality" of 'safe and pleasant' and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP. Should there be the possibility of "unacceptable potential risk of noise disturbance" this should have been identified in Environmental Health's assessment as the Subject Matter Expert. Alternatively, it could have been set as a condition but to categorically deny the application appears unreasonable and from a transparency perspective lacks sufficient justification in arising at this decision. The proposal itself satisfies the aim and objective of the "safe and pleasant" in deterring the area to be used for dog waste and to deter unruly behaviour at unsociable hours. I would also like to highlight the bias in summarising the public comments made in reference to this application via the planning portal. The account is not subjective and has been selective in the wording and language that it has chosen to report which I believe is not truly reflective of the town's and the relevant public bodies appetite in seeing this proposal successfully come to fruition. Following on from this, the public support I have received has been heart-warming. The Largs and Millport News Facebook post is testimony to this with many people commenting on how they feel there is a great need for such a service and would most definitely use a service like this. I have also been contacted by many people who would like to be considered for any jobs I create. Overall the support from our town has been incredible and leaves me with no doubt that such a business would be very well received. Whilst I am in support of other dog/animal businesses in our town, it would be remiss of me not to mention in my appeal that there are several dog day care and dog boarding businesses operating from their home in Largs and in North Ayrshire. I find it difficult to understand why this is any different to my proposal with some of these businesses being run from semi-detached properties or flats and operate on a 24-hour basis. One business that particularly confuses me is Oaks Vet practice in Largs. This particular business forms the lower level of a block of residential flats. Unlike my business where dogs will be happy, engaged and entertained, it is common knowledge that dogs do not like going to the vets and behaviours like pooing, peeing, trembling or barking/howling are commonplace there. Whilst dogs bark by way of communication, it is unusual for a dog to bark excessively unless there is an underlying issue for example when they are left alone. The dogs in my care will never be left alone, instead they will be kept amused with games and interaction. In the unlikely event a dog barks excessively, I will have a management strategy in place. An example of this would be a distraction or redirection of the dog’s attention or maybe a change of environment like taking the dog for a walk. This is often all that is needed to change unwanted behaviours. Each of my dogs will have a contractual agreement with my business where I reserve the right to terminate their place in my care should they have any antisocial behaviour like excessive barking. Each dog will be given a trial session to ensure their suitability before the contract commences. I will stress to each of my customers that if any dog breaches the excessive barking rule, then they will be asked to collect their dog from day-care. I frequent a local restaurant with my dogs and 13
Page 14
their policy is “3 barks and you are out”. Dog owners understand this is the terms of their business and the business has found it is not adversely affected by having such a rule in place. By having a clause in my contract that covers excessive barking, I am sure you will agree that I cannot do any more to safeguard the potential for excessive noise disturbance. I must add, it was always in my plan to have this contractual term, as I myself do not like the idea of working in an environment where a dog barks all day. Unlike the local and authority wide dog day care businesses mentioned above, my business would operate within normal business hours, Monday to Friday from a detached commercial property which starts the run of businesses into our town on the busiest, noisiest road in Largs. On the map below you will see the key will explain the properties and their proximity and the layout of the businesses in this area. Homemount House that was mentioned in one of the objections sits at the same proximity to 2 Lovat Street as it does to Morrisons Supermarket which is just down the road. Directly across the street is Quick-fit with metal banging and the clinking of materials. The map shows that 2 Lovat Street is already surrounded by busy businesses that create noise, traffic and constant flow. With regards noise, I can confirm an average dog bark is approximately 80 decibels which is considered acceptable. A standard brick wall will block an average of 40 decibels. By adding soft absorption materials life sofas and beanbags, it can reduce the amount of sound that travels outward to neighbours. There is other day to day tactics that can be used to make a happy, settled, calm environment for dogs. Dogs find classical music soothing and playing it can reduce the frequency of a dog’s disruptive barking. Lots of people under-estimate how intelligent our K-9 companions actually are, and they are unaware of how much dogs appreciate the complexities of classical music. Keeping classical music on a low volume may be all that is needed to create a relaxed environment. I will always have classical music playing in my day care centre. Following on from my previous point regarding many dog day care/boarding businesses already existing in residential areas within North Ayrshire including Largs, I will demonstrate using a map and illustrations where some of these are located. See map below. Ardrossan, Saltcoats & Stevenson 14
Page 15
Dog day care Vets Paws to Play – Chapelwell Street, Saltcoats. Happy Pets Ayrshire – 11 Glebe St, Saltcoats Round of paws – 10 Winton Circus, Saltcoats 15
Page 16
Largs Dog day care Vets From the illustrations above you will see that there are other dog day care operators and vets located in mixed residential and commercial areas within North Ayrshire. I assume, like my proposed business, that these were approved by planning therefore please advise me of the difference in my application? The building at 2 Lovat Street has what many of these businesses don’t have – a detached plot with it’s own garden. I will conclude my appeal document by clearly outlining my plans for 2 Lovat Street. Following a conversation I had with a local Councillor (whom I believe to be on the planning committee) there seems to have been some areas of my proposed plan were assumptions have been made and I would like the opportunity clarify these. • My proposed business of Dog Day Care with a small pet shop provision will operate on a Monday to Friday only basis during sociable hours which I believe is classed as 7am-6pm. There was no provision requested on my planning application for off street parking. My customers will likely stop long enough to drop their dog and drive off. I do not expect any parking related congestion from my business. Many of my customers will likely walk. • I am flexible as to how many dogs I have in my care however I was planning on a ratio of 10 dogs to 1 member of staff. This number has been researched and considered as manageable. It is likely in the initial days I will not exceed 10 and I never plan to exceed 20 dogs at any one time. I am happy to have a discussion surrounding this. • I will be operating a calm, supervised environment and trained staff will ensure dogs are happy and settled. Happy, settled dogs are unlikely to bark for prolonged periods. For any dog that may show signs of distress or prolonged barking, this shows they are not happy in day-care and my previously agreed contract with the dog owner, allows me to terminate our agreement and send the dog home. • The garden will be used to allow the dogs in my care to go to the toilet. Dogs will not be left outside as was assumed and as is mentioned in the objection letters. Dogs will not be left roaming the garden unattended and any signs of unwanted noise, dogs will be brought back inside. There will be no outside compound, no kennels, dogs will not be kept outside at any time and only be outside to go to the toilet and get fresh air. To clarify a previous question asked, toilet waste will be picked up and disposed of in a 16
Page 17
hygienic, safe way, nothing will be left in the garden area. It is ludicrous to assume that a smell will omit from the garden if all dog waste is being picked up as and when dogs are depositing as has been mentioned in objection letters. • The 6 foot fence that I propose will be neat and tidy and set back to allow sensible site lines to the neighbouring property. This fence is required to ensure the dogs safety whilst visiting the garden. • There will be a door reinstated at the rear of the property (the existing back door which has been bricked up) This door will allow dogs to safely visit the garden for their toilet needs with no need to exit via the front of the building. • I will have CCTV in operation which will show the coming and goings at the property and will demonstrate, if required, that there is no excessive noise that would cause disruption to neighbouring residents. • I plan to run a home from home dog day care facility, allowing dogs to feel calm and settled in my care. There will be sofas, beanbags, dog tv, classical music, toys to play with and cuddles a plenty. All things considered, my dog clients should show no signs of being distressed and breaching any noise levels considered to be a nuisance. I would welcome the opportunity to attend a hearing. I am almost certain after meeting me you will get an insight into my caring, nurturing, community spirited nature. After discussions with me about my proposed business, I will show you my passion and desire to make this work in a sensitive, community driven way. I am an advocate for helping our town grow and improve so my long-term objective is to bring a fantastic new business to our wonderful town, creating new jobs and to offer a fun, loving service for our furry friends. 17
Page 18
REPORT OF HANDLING Reference No: 22/00408/PP Proposal: Change of use from Class 1 to include dog creche Location: 2 Lovat Street, Largs, Ayrshire, KA30 9NE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDP Allocation: General Urban Area LDP Policies: SP1 - Towns and Villages Objective / Strategic Policy 2 / Detailed Policy 3 -Town Centres & Retail / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consultations: Yes Neighbour Notification: Neighbour Notification carried out on 09.06.2022 Neighbour Notification expired on 30.06.2022 Advert: Regulation 20 (1) Advert Published on:- 22.06.2022 Expired on:- 13.07.2022 Schedule 3 Published on:- 22.06.2022 Expired on:- 13.07.2022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Applications: None Appeal History Of Site: Relevant Development Plan Policies SP1 - Towns and Villages Objective Towns and Villages Objective Our towns and villages are where most of our homes, jobs, community facilities, shops and services are located. We want to continue to support our communities, businesses and protect our natural environment by directing new development to our towns and villages as shown in the Spatial Strategy. Within urban areas (within the settlement boundary), the LDP identifies town centre locations, employment locations and areas of open space. Most of the remaining area within settlements is shown as General Urban Area. Within the General Urban Area, proposals for residential development will accord with the development plan in principle, and applications will be assessed against the policies of the LDP. New non-residential proposals will be assessed against policies of this LDP that relate to the proposal. Appendix 2 18
Page 19
22/00408/PP In principle, we will support development proposals within our towns and villages that: a) Support the social and economic functions of our town centres by adopting a town centre first principle that directs major new development and investment to town centre locations as a priority including supporting town centre living. b) Provide the right new homes in the right places by working alongside the Local Housing Strategy to deliver choice and variety in the housing stock, protecting land for housing development to ensure we address housing need and demand within North Ayrshire and by supporting innovative approaches to improving the volume and speed of housing delivery. c) Generate new employment opportunities by identifying a flexible range of business, commercial and industrial areas to meet market demands including those that would support key sector development at Hunterston and i3, Irvine. d) Recognise the value of our built and natural environment by embedding placemaking into our decision-making. e) Prioritise the re-use of brownfield land over greenfield land by supporting a range of strategic developments that will deliver: o regeneration of vacant and derelict land through its sustainable and productive re-use, particularly at Ardrossan North Shore, harbour and marina areas, Montgomerie Park (Irvine) and Lochshore (Kilbirnie). o regeneration and conservation benefits, including securing the productive re- use of Stoneyholm Mill (Kilbirnie) and supporting the Millport Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme. f) Support the delivery of regional partnerships such as the Ayrshire Growth Deal in unlocking the economic potential of the Ayrshire region. 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. 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 19
Page 20
22/00408/PP 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 3 -Town Centres & Retail Policy 3: Town Centres and Retail Our town centres are the social and economic heart of our communities, providing jobs, homes and employment. Appropriate development within our town centres has the potential to improve their vitally and vibrancy. This can also ensure that investment in our communities is directed in a way that is most beneficial to residents, employees and visitors to our towns. In principle, we will support development in our network of centres shown in schedule 6 where it would be of a scale appropriate to that centre. For development that has the potential to generate significant footfall, we will support proposals that have adopted a town centre first sequential approach. This includes retail and commercial leisure uses, offices, community and cultural facilities and where appropriate, public buildings such as education and health facilities. We will require that locations are considered, and a reasoned justification given for discounting them, in the order of preference: o Town centres (as defined in Strategic Policy 1). 20
Page 21
22/00408/PP o Edge of town centres. o Other commercial centres (as defined above). o Out-of-centre locations that are, or can be made, easily accessible by a choice of transport modes. We will be flexible and realistic in applying the sequential approach, in particular where key sector and employment uses are proposed, to ensure that different uses are developed in the most appropriate locations. It is important that community, education and healthcare facilities are located where they are easily accessible to the communities that they intend to serve. We recognise that for some uses, such as sports centres and schools, a town centre location may not always be the appropriate location for them, particularly where sports pitches are part of the proposal. When a development is proposed within our Network of Centres, we will support proposals which positively contribute to: o The role and function of the centre within the network, including by addressing an identified opportunity. o Quality of character and identity that creates a shared sense of place for users, visitors and residents o Community well-being, including by supporting the integration of residential uses and by enhancing links with surrounding residential areas and tourist attractions via the road and path network with associated blue & green network. o Vitality, viability and vibrancy of the centre, supporting it as a place for business to locate, expand and flourish by enhancing and diversifying the mix of uses including supporting economic and social activity. o Our important retail streets/areas (as described in schedule 6 and in our Town Centre Audits), recognising the fragile nature of some of our retail areas. o Accessibility of the town centre including considering the location of regular rail and bus routes. In principle, we will also support proposals which align with town centre strategies and we will continue to encourage other regeneration initiatives, such as Conservation Area renewal projects, which improve the quality, accessibility and perception of town centre environments. Description Permission is sought for the change of use of a Class 1 (shop) to a sui generis (dog day care) use. It is proposed to enclose part of the curtilage of the shop unit to create a secure outdoor space for the dogs. There are residential properties to the east and north. To the south is another shop unit. To the west is the A78 with a B&B, tanning salon, and garage on the immediate western side. The area beyond is predominantly residential. The shop unit is a one and a half storey building with a ground floor footprint of some 76sqm. It was last used as the 'Bluestone' gift shop. There is an area of open space, some 280sqm, to the east and south of the building. This comprises part of the curtilage of the unit. It is proposed to enclose some 175sqm with a 1.8m high timber fence. The fence would come no further forward (to the north) of the front elevation of the adjacent No. 6 Lovat Street. 21
Page 22
22/00408/PP The applicant has provided a statement setting out how the use would operate. The applicant states that the use would be operated 8am to 5.30/6pm, Monday to Friday only, but subsequently verbally advised the case officer that the start time would likely be 7.30am to allow customers to drop off dogs prior to travelling to Glasgow. There would be no off-street parking as it is considered existing on-street parking is sufficient. The way the proposed fence is positioned could allow for off-street parking, but none is proposed. Customers are unlikely to be staying for anything other than short periods to pick up/drop off dogs. There would be space for sufficient waste storage. The site is identified as part of the settlement of Largs in the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP). The proposal requires to be assessed against Strategic Policy 1: The Towns and Villages Objective, Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking and Policy 3: Town Centres and Retail. Consultations and Representations The application was subject to statutory notification procedures including advertisement in local press. There have been 16 objections and one representation of support. 1. The property is at the junction of Lovat Street and Irvine Road (A78) which is very busy. Users of the existing shop have parked across the pavement making it difficult for pedestrians and vehicles to see at the junction. If a dog escaped, it could run into the busy junction. Response: Transport Scotland, as Trunk Road Authority, was consulted and has no objections. The property has a lawful commercial (Class 1 shop) use and any dangerous or illegal parking would be a matter for the Police. 2. Users of the property would have to park on the road which is already an issue for local residents. The proposed off-street parking would remove 3-4 on-street parking places and be detrimental to local residents. The spaces could be used by other business when the proposed use is shut, thereby denying the use to residents. There is a lack of details as to how the parking would be achieved. A previous application (ref: 95/00546/PP) was refused due to concerns over parking. Two of the received objections stated that they had no issue with the use but objected in terms of off-street parking only. Response: No off-street parking is proposed. This misconception appears to have arisen from NAC Active Travel and Transportation's comments (see below). In terms of the 1995 application - this proposal was approved not refused. That proposal permitted off-street parking. Notwithstanding, the 1995 permission is considered to have little weight in respect of the determination of this application. As above the property has a lawful commercial use which operates without off-street parking. It is not considered any such parking is required. 3. Noise from barking dogs could affect nearby residents and businesses. It is not possible to keep dogs from barking. What restrictions would be placed on the operation in terms of hours and dog numbers? It is suggested the permission be restricted to 6 small dogs or 3 large dogs at any time. Response: Noted. NAC Environmental Health states that dogs must not be allowed to bark for regular or prolonged periods. This is considered more fully below. 22
Page 23
22/00408/PP 4. Concern over the smell from dog fouling. More information is required in terms of refuse disposal. Surely a dedicated foul bin would be required. The premises should be inspected to ensure the care of the animals. Response: It is considered that dog waste could be managed within the curtilage of the property, prior to disposal, without being of a detriment to local amenity. NAC Environmental Health could take action against any statutory nuisance, and it would be for the operator of any use to ensure they did not cause such nuisance. 5. The proposed fence would be unsightly and out of keeping with the local area. There is no external access to the proposed enclosed yard. This means dogs would have to exit the front of the shop to be put in the yard. There is no information in respect of external lighting. Would further structures, such as kennels be constructed in the yard? Response: The fence would be sited behind the front elevation of the property and that of the residential property to the east. It would be of a construction common to residential properties, and it is noted this would be 'permitted development' if constructed at one of the nearby residences. It is therefore not considered to be out of keeping with area. The applicant has confirmed the intention to re-open a previously closed rear door to the shop unit. This work does not require planning permission. No external lighting is proposed. If further structures were required, further planning applications may be required. 6. The ownership of the piece of land where the outside area is proposed is in dispute. Response: The applicant has notified the owner of the land as required by planning application regulations. It is noted no further information is provided in respect of the alleged dispute. However, such an issue would be a matter for the parties involved, and not material to this planning application. 7. There was no consultation and neighbours were only notified on the 13th June 2022 by way of a letter dated 9th June 2022. Response: Given the scale of the application, there is no requirement for prior consultation. The Council issued Neighbour Notification letters on the 9th June 2022 which were delivered by Royal Mail on the 13th June 2022. The application was also advertised, and comments were invited until 13th July 2022. The applicant was invited to comment in respect of the issues raised and responded as follows: There are no plans for off-street parking. The applicant was given the plans of the site from the property owner who was informed of the application. The applicant considers there would be a maximum of 20 dogs on site at any time. This is based on 10 dogs per member of staff, with one member of staff in addition to the applicant. There is a door to be reinstated which will allow direct access from the property to the enclosed area. A high desk would be constructed within the property to further limit chance of escape. Dog waste would be collected as and when deposited and not left outside. No external lighting or kennels are proposed. 23
Page 24
22/00408/PP In terms of noise, the applicant states that the property would be managed to minimise potential disturbance. Dogs excessively barking is often caused by being left alone and dogs would not be left alone at the premises. Any excessive barking would be managed through distraction/redirection of the dog's attention. The applicant would reserve the right to terminate the care of dogs which display anti- social behaviour, including excessive barking. The location is on the busiest road in Largs which is noisy in-itself and there is a garage across the road which can generate noise. This is a more suitable location for such a business than a residential property. The applicant highlights the support from the Community Council and points to a positive reaction to stories in the local newspaper. There were 152 likes and 52 positive comments in reaction to the application on social media. Response: Noted. The representation of support can be summarised as follows: 1. The area is a residential with many dog owners and barking is a common noise. The site being on a main road is also generally noisy and it cannot be described as a silent location. The traffic generated by the use would likely be less than that generated by a shop use. The proposed off-street parking does not make any sense as on-street would be lost. Overall, it is considered it would be a good addition to the town. Response: Noted. The issue of the location and noise is considered further below. Largs Community Council supports the proposal. The concerns regarding noise and the appearance of the fence were noted. However, it is considered the proposal would add to the amenities of the town. NAC Environmental Health has no objections. The applicant is advised that they must ensure dogs do not bark regularly or for prolonged periods. Transport Scotland has no objections. NAC Active Travel and Transportation has requested further information in respect of the off-street parking, including details of the exact number, size and construction of proposed bays. Response: No off-street parking is proposed which is set out in the application form and confirmed again by the applicant. The applicant referenced the possibility of off- street parking given the position of the proposed fence, but none is proposed as part of this application. It is not considered that off-street parking is required given the existing use of the property. Analysis The Towns and Villages Objective of Strategic Policy 1 states that in principle support will be given to proposals which deliver productive re-use of vacant land. Support will also be given to development which supports the social and economic functions of our town centres by adopting a town centre first approach. Policy 3: Town Centres and Retail, of the LDP states that the Council will be flexible and realistic in applying a sequential approach. 24
Page 25
22/00408/PP The proposal would make use of an existing commercial property which is currently vacant. The proposal is unlikely to have significant footfall and it is noted that it is some 130m from the Largs Town Centre, as identified in the LDP. It is not clear if such a use would readily fit within a town centre location. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposal accords with the Strategic Policy 1 and Policy 3 of the LDP. Strategic Policy 2: Placemaking sets out the six qualities of a successful place. It is considered the relevant qualities in respect of this proposal are 'distinctive' and 'safe and pleasant.' The only physical work proposed is the installation of a 1.8m high timber fence to enclose the curtilage of the property. The fence would be set behind the front elevation of the property, and that of the neighbouring property to the east. It would be of an appearance common to the area, and it is noted the works would be permitted development were the property in residential use. It is considered that the fence would be an appropriate addition to the area and as such the proposal meets the 'distinctive' quality of Strategic Policy 2. The 'safe and pleasant' quality states that a proposal should respect the amenity of existing and future users in terms of factors including noise, smells and traffic impacts. The property is on the junction of Lovat Street and the A78. It is an existing commercial use and could be re-opened as a Class 1 shop without any planning permission. Transport Scotland, as Trunk Roads Authority, has no objection. No off- street parking is proposed. There is on-street parking immediately adjacent to the property. The property has, and could, operate with on-street parking only as a Class 1 shop. The possibility for off-street parking is noted but none is proposed in this application. The permission from 1995 which allowed the formation of off-street parking is also noted. However, it is not considered that off-street parking is required or that the proposed use would have any significant adverse traffic impacts. The possibility of dog waste to cause smell nuisance is noted. However, it is considered that there is sufficient space within the curtilage of the building for the management of dog waste prior to proper disposal. NAC Environmental Health has provided no comment in respect of waste. However, it is noted Envrionmental Health would have power to act against any statutory nuisance. Given the opportunity to actively manage dog waste, it is not considered that any smell impacts would be significant. The possibility of the use to cause noise disturbance is also noted. The applicant has stated that there would be no more than 20 dogs at the premises and would seek to manage the dogs, including the refusal to look after persistently noisy dogs. The occupier of a residential property could potentially have as many dogs as they wished, without any need for planning permission. The property is sited on a busy road with other businesses nearby. The position of the property and nearby businesses are noted. However, it is also noted that the properties to the immediate east and north are residential. The wider area is also predominantly residential in character. NAC Environmental Health, although not objecting, has specifically advised that dogs must not be permitted to bark for regular or prolonged periods. Noise from dogs barking is a recognised 25
Page 26
22/00408/PP nuisance. Up to 20 dogs could be present on site and whilst the management procedures and potential for domestic properties to keep, in planning terms, as many dogs as the like are noted, it is considered that the proposal would place nearby noise sensitive properties at significant risk of disturbance. Limiting the number of dogs to a smaller amount could potentially mitigate the risk. However, the applicant has stated that a number fewer than 20 may not make the business viable. It is not considered that a condition relating to the size or type of dog would be relevant or enforceable. The hours of operation could be limited to daytime hours and weekday operation only. However, it is not considered that this would acceptably mitigate the potential disturbance risk. NAC Environmental Health could act against statutory nuisance, should it occur, but this is only after nuisance has occurred and been identified. On balance therefore, the proposal is not held to meet the quality of 'safe and pleasant' and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 2 of the LDP. The application should be refused on the grounds of unacceptable potential risk of noise disturbance. There are no material considerations to the contrary which outweigh this consideration. Decision Refused Case Officer - Mr Iain Davies 26
Page 27
22/00408/PP Appendix 1 - Drawings relating to decision Drawing Title Drawing Reference (if applicable) Drawing Version (if applicable) Location Plan Block Plan / Site Plan 27
Page 28
Appendix 3 28
Page 29
Appendix 4 29
Page 30
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 Caitriona McAuley : Head Of Service (Economic Development & Regeneration) 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. 30
Page 31
Appendix 5 31
Page 32
32
Page 33
From: To: Angela Little ( Committee Services Officer / Committee & Member Serv ) Subject: Fwd: Planning application 22/00408/PP - 2 Lovat Street, Largs Date: 07 September 2022 14:22:46 *** This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials. *** Get Outlook for Android From: Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2022, 14:21 To: Subject: Planning application 22/00408/PP - 2 Lovat Street, Largs I am writing this email in response to the appeal against the above planning application. There are many statements made that are untrue and need to be corrected. 1) I am a close neighbour of 2 Lovat Street and have lived in Lovat Street for over 30 years. The applicant claims this area is a teenage drinking area. That is not true. I can categorically state in all my years living in Lovat Street I have never seen anyone drinking in that area and to class that area as an anti-social area in order to advance a planning application is a disgrace. The point about a 5G box not being located in that area because of potentially the public climbing on the roof of property is also a nonsense. 2) The applicant claims that of 15 neighbour comments, less than half objected. I have reviewed the comments on the planning portal and 11 are against , one objects to car parking and three favour, one of which comments on Largs Community Council which appeared after the comments section was closed. How did this comment appear on council portal after comments closed to public? How Largs Community Council can support this application with getting opinions of local residents in order to get a balanced view brings into question their judgement. Apparently it was discussed on 16th June before residents were formed the original business was subject to closure. 3) The applicant states Environmental Health had no objection. In fact They stated that the applicant must ensured that any dogs kept at premises are not permitted to bark regularly. The applicant states that any barking dogs will be returned to owner. That cannot be guaranteed as the reason the dogs are there is because the owner is obviously unavailable. Transport Scotland are not responsible for Lovat Street, only trunk roads the point that they did not object is of no consequence to the application. 4) The applicant makes a point about having many supporters in Largs. I can categorically state this is not the case in the surrounding area. Many folk from not only Lovat Street but neighbouring streets have stated to me that a dog creche next to a main road and in the 33
Page 34
middle of a residential area is not the correct location. 5) A comparison is made to Morrisons Supermarket and Kwik-Fit and the noise they create. Both are far enough away from Lovat Steet therefore noise is not an issue from these premises. 6) If I understand the application correctly dog waste collection will be by normal council service. That will result in dog waste for up to 20 dogs being collected every three weeks. Is there a health risk here? Also, who wants a dog toilet for up to maybe 20 dogs on their door step. , 7) A comparison is made to three other dog day care/boarding businesses in existence in Saltcoats. This is not true. Round of Paws is not a boarding service but is a dog grooming establishment Happy Pets Ayrshire is a dog walking service. The dogs in these businesses will be by appointment only therefore dogs at any involved at any one time will be minimal. Paws to Play location is on the fringe of the town , far from main road. Its next door neighbour is a church. 8) The applicant states she had a conversation with a local Councillor on the planning committee. This is a concern regarding bias. Surely the Councillor involved should not be discussing a planning rejection with an applicant and seems to advise how the planning appeal should be framed. There is a potential conflict of interest here therefore the Councillor involved should consider removing himself from the meeting when appeal is addressed. 9) The applicant makes a case that dogs in her care dogs are unlikely to bark . This cannot be guaranteed. Dogs bark for numerous reasons as any dog owner will testify. It's not always because they are unhappy. 10) The original application was for hours 8am to 530 to six pm. The appeal states opening 7am. Is this change not a breach of council rules. 11) Looking out your window and seeing a six foot fence across the road is not becoming to a residential area. In summary, the appeal does not change anything. Bland statements about the methods to be used to keep dogs quiet cannot be guaranteed. The original decision was correct and nothing in the appeal should change this. Excessive dog barking is likely if this proposal is allowed to proceed which would be detrimental to those living closeby including elderly residents living in Homemount House a retirement complex. If the applicant were to drop the dog creche side of the proposal and concentrate on a pet shop selling supplies, then there would be no issue in my opinion. 34
Page 35
LARGS Get Outlook for Android 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
37
Page 38
38
Page 39
39
Page 40
40
Page 41
41
Page 42
Largs KA30 9NE Planning Application : 22/00408/PP – 2 Lovat Street Further to my previous concerns, I not below comments relating to the applicants review report. 1. I note the times of operation have crept out, how much more will this happen 2. It is noted that the street light is inadequate, it should be noted that NAC are just about to complete an update the lighting, one of which is opposite this property. Although what this has to do with this application escapes me. 3. It is noted that there is an antisocial problem adjacent to the property. Having lived in Lovat Street for 35 years and I categorically say there never has been and problem. A few empty cans only indicates a litter problem not dealt with by the previous owner. 4. The applicant points out that other dog day care operates in Largs. Of the ones that I know about, they take 3 or 4 dogs not the 20 Proposed by the applicant. This application is different, its a more commercial operation. 5. If the dogs are only let out to go to the toilet, why a large area surrounded by a 6ft high fence. 6. The applicants mentioned that doge faeces will be disposed off but no mention of how, where and how often, 20 dogs will produce a considerable volume. 7. With 20 dogs urinating several times a day, the build up of urine and thus smell in the grass will be considerable, especially with the increase of hot spells we are having. 8. The applicant notes that less than half of the 15 neighbours who were notified objected, this underlies the actual amount of objections received which was 19 9. To say that happy dogs do not bark is beyond belief, dogs bark for several reasons and distracting them is sometimes impossible. 10. The applicant points out the proximity of Kwick-Fit, the vast majority of their work does not involving ‘Banging and Clinking’ And even if it did, its no reason to increase the potential noise levels by the introduction of barking dogs. 42
Page 43
From: To: Angela Little ( Committee Services Officer / Committee & Member Serv ) Subject: Planning Application : 22/00408/PP Date: 29 August 2022 12:11:53 ________________________________ *** This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials. *** ________________________________ I wish to make a further representation regarding the above application. The applicant has repeatedly stated that the outside area will only be used as a toiletting facility. Thus the dogs will not be outside for any extended period so no problem with noise. Can she please explain, then, why she is proposing to build a ball pit and sensory area? Thank you. Sent from my iPad 43
Page 44
44
Page 45
45
Page 46
46
Page 47
47
Page 48
48
Page 49
49
Page 50
50
Page 51
51
Page 52
52
Page 53
53
Page 54
54
Page 55
55
Page 56
56
Page 57
Lynsey Ewing – Application No: 100570897-001 Planning Appeal Document No.2, 22nd September 2022 Dear Members of the appeal committee and anyone involved in the final decision for the proposed dog day care facility in 2 Lovat Street, Largs. Firstly, let me apologise as I fear this document will be a regurgitation of the document before as was the letters received from the objectors, even although I had addressed their points on my original appeal document. I will walk through each area of concern in the headed sections below and hopefully go some way to helping you reach a decision. Within these sections I will highlight areas where I have answered questions that the objectors have asked in their most recent communications. Garden area, hygiene and disposal of dog waste There has been mention of how I plan to dispose of dog waste. As mentioned previously I will pick up faeces every time a dog deposits. If the safest means of disposal is considered a dog poo bin, then I will take my poo bags to one of the many allocated dog poo bins that are around our town. This will be done every single day and poo will not collect in the property. The aforementioned dog poo bins are emptied regularly in our town and pose no risk to the neighbours of Lovat Street. If this is not an acceptable disposal, I would be happy to dispose in our local recycling centre daily. If either of these options are unsuitable, I will explore alternatives with the council and be fully compliant with their hygiene and disposal requirements. Dogs urinating on grass is no different to dogs urinating on parkland and our inclement weather does a good job rinsing through grass around our town. In hotter months, the grass in Lovat Street will be hosed just like my garden at home. One objector makes a comment “who wants a toilet for up to 20 dogs on their doorstep”. As mentioned in my initial appeal document, this area at the moment is by in large wasteland and is used by many locals who take their dog there to do their business. I can tell you in good faith that the previous businessman who owned the gift shop, stated there was a problem with this because, not only with copious amounts of dog fouling but by not picking it up meant that when it came to cutting the grass, he was met with an unpleasant situation. For winter months when it gets darker earlier, it would be advantageous to have an outside light (not flood lights or intrusive lights), just a normal garden light to allow us to see the dogs when they are outside. This light will go out when we are not in the garden. There was never mention of the garden being a play area. I have no idea why this keeps cropping up. The sensory areas and ball pits will be inside the building. Never on any of my applications has it stated that outside space would be a play area and to my knowledge the newspaper made this clear also. I’m sure you will agree that it is not for the residents of Lovat Street to decide whether the garden is big enough for dogs to toilet there. The garden at 2 Lovat Street is a fabulous size. You will see this from the footprint of the map on my original application. Afterall, they could have a neighbour with 10 or more residential dogs living next door (I know several families with large numbers of dogs). The fence that has been so largely in dispute by the aforementioned objectors, is a necessity whether I was looking after 1 dog or more. Safety is at the forefront of my business and even though this is a toilet area, every dog will be kept within the confines of safety behind the fence to keep Appendix 6 57
Page 58
them safely in the garden. It would be remiss of me not to mention that even if this was a residential property, I would be permitted to erect a 6ft fence. Lastly, as mentioned to the objectors on numerous occasions – the outside area WILL NOT be a play area and will be used only to let my dogs use the toilet. The Building and it’s use I have spent some time in a doggy day care centre currently thriving in Kilwinning North Ayrshire. This particular doggy day care centre is comparable in size to the proposed venue at Lovat Street. The doggy day care centre is in a residential area of Kilwinning and whilst not listed as one in my previous appeal document, it is a perfect example of how well this business works, causing no problems to surrounding area. I have volunteered there, and the proprietor/owner of the business has been incredibly supportive and helpful with my new business plans. As previously mentioned, her unit is of similar size to that of 2 Lovat Street and there is more than enough space for dogs to thrive in this environment. Everything I do will be in accordance with any requirements stipulated within my licence so the space required for each dog will be within guidance. See attached a plan of the layout of the inside. It is important to mention here that this is not to scale as the layout for the inside was not needed for the original planning application. In the absence of architectural drawings, I have sketched this to show a rough layout. I expect the pet shop area to be much smaller than what it looks like below, leaving most of the space for the dog lounge area. The comment made by Mr Connor is news to me about 50% of the shop being used for retail. I have no idea what he is referring to here or where he got this information? For the record, I do not intend to use 50% of the shop for retail. You will note that safety is paramount with my double door entry/exit system. This will allow me to close one door, take the dog in/out to a holding area before opening the second door into the inner sanctum. You will also note, I have a small kitchen and toilet area to the rear. You will see there are adequate rest areas and dogs will be encouraged to rest for a minimum of 2 hours per day and for those who wish to rest longer, this is also fine. I will incorporate an area for feeding and will have plenty of space should I have to separate a dog from the pack. I will have a washing machine fitted to wash through covers, towels or anything dog related. It is also worth mentioning here that upstairs is almost the same size as the footprint of the ground level, so can also be used for storage or other use. CCTV will only be used to record the goings on in my property. Neighbouring properties should not be worried about cameras facing their properties – this will not happen. I acknowledge that you do not require the above information as to how I plan to layout the business but sadly, this seems to be something the neighbours of Lovat Street are obsessing over so I am happy to illustrate this for their benefit. 58
Page 59
Additional Information Having considered each point put forward by the objectors and their interest in the number of dogs I propose to look after. I have given this considerable thought. In my initial appeal document, I said I would like to start with 10 dogs and that I may well never increase however given I was looking at a ratio of 10 dogs to 1 staff member, I had said that I would be open to increasing this to a maximum of 20 dogs but never any more than 20. In a bid to show my compliance and willingness to be flexible, I would be open to lowering my limit. Whilst this will have a financial implication on my business, I feel confident my retail will bridge the gap. I will happily be guided by you as to minimum/maximum numbers. Each of the dogs in my care will have to be neutered so sex of the dogs is not a consideration as per one comment in the feedback I received from objectors. I will not take any dogs from the dangerous 59
Page 60
dog’s act and I will be wary of breeds that I know can be a trickier breed to manage. My preference would be small to medium dogs, but I will view each dog on its own merit. As stated in my first document, I have many supporters of my plans and from what I can see, the only people with a problem are those directly around 2 Lovat Street. I have been in contact with numerous families in neighbouring streets and from the ones I have spoken to, they are also in support of my plans. To clarify the matter on my conversation with a local councillor. When I called the local councillor to ask advice, I had no idea he was on the planning committee. He stopped me during my opening speech and told me that he was on the planning committee and that he had taken forward some of the objections on behalf of constituents. For this reason, he is not allowed to be part of the appeal. He did tell me the objections he took forward were not his opinion as he is not allowed to take his opinion into consideration. I’m sure you will agree this takes any allegations of bias completely out of the equation when in fact a councillor who is on the planning committee taking objections forward in the first place, could be considered as “muddying the waters” but I never questioned this at the time. Having considered opening times and following discussions with other doggy day care centres and in the interests of my neighbours in Lovat Street, I would be willing to open my business to dogs at 8am. I would be on the premises slightly earlier, maybe 7:30-45am to set up, but my dogs would arrive at 8am. Collection time would be 5-5:30pm, but this also allows flexibility if owners are running late. This falls perfectly in line with sociable working hours. This also sits in line with my original application. My background as a professional dog groomer and my business acumen of running successful businesses, should leave no objectors wondering about my ability to run and make a success of such a business. My dog handling skills are exemplary and my understanding and knowledge of dogs, dogs body language, canine anatomy and canine first aid is excellent. My canine first aid certificate is current and up to date. I will employ staff with similar experience. Having worked in a special needs school for 3 years (with a school dog), I do not protest to be an expert in Autism or any Autistic Spectrum Disorders however I think it is harsh of the owner of Bus Stop Toy Shop to try and use Autistic customers as a reason to object to my proposal. To the best of my knowledge The Bus Stop Toy Shop is not a recognised clinic or approved by the health board and is in fact, just a toy shop and whilst every customer is important, he will have many dog lovers amongst his customer base, autistic or otherwise. This can only be construed as an over exaggeration for the purposes of weakening my proposal and sadly a low blow in a bid to insight concern in this area. This would be an important time to mention that there would be possible opportunities within my business to provide other community based initiatives such as volunteering for people suffering with mental health issues. I would be more than happy to work with the council to enable people with mental health issues to volunteer in my establishment. This is a proven outlet to help sufferers reduce anxiety, ease loneliness, boost self-confidence, adds structure to their day and help them to meet new people. The Doggy Day Care centre I volunteer at has a tried and tested approach to this and works directly with the job centre as it has proven so successful. I would like to conclude by thanking you for taking the time to read this document. I know this is often part of your process. I hope you can deduce from my correspondence that I will work with my local authority and stick to any guidelines that they ensue and work tirelessly to ensure I comply will 60
Page 61
all aspects of ‘safe and pleasant’. I would also like to caveat by saying that should I be proven wrong, I will be the first to agree that maybe this wasn’t a good idea after all and in turn, terminate trading. I do not foresee this to be the case and in fact I think not only will my business be an asset to our town but a service that many people will come to rely on and love. 61