2500103PP - Site to South West of Woodside House, Beith
North Ayrshire Council · 21 May 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 21 May 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL 21st May 2025 Planning Committee Locality Garnock Valley Reference 25/00103/PP Application Registered 13th March 2025 Decision Due 13th May 2025 Ward Garnock Valley Recommendation Refused __________________________________________________________________ Location Site to south west of Woodside House, Beith Applicant Glendeal Properties Ltd Proposal Erection of detached dwelling house with associated garden ground, parking and boundary treatment ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Description Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse on land within the Woodside Estate to the northwest of Beith. The land is owned by housing developer and is in separate ownership from Woodside House. The site adjoins a consented development of 5 houses which was commenced during 2008 and remains extant (ref. 07/01232/PP). No houses have yet been built but the access road and services which were authorised by the planning permission were constructed in 2008/09, including a pedestrian footway link to Beith alongside Kings Road. As such, the planning permission has been implemented and remains live without limit of time. The applicants, who are the current owners of the land, have recently obtained a building warrant for the five houses which have planning permission. However, they state that the viability of constructing the consented 5 houses would not be profitable at present, due to the build costs exceeding the anticipated sale income. They are seeking planning permission to construct a sixth house within the development to either break even or make a profit. They have provided costings which illustrate the viability gap.
Page 2
The proposed house would be similar in size and design to the consented houses within the extant planning permission (which was subject to a non-material variation during 2024). It would be sited at the northwest corner of the development and would face southeast onto the access road. The house would have two storeys and would be L-shaped on plan. It would have a modern design and would provide living accommodation and an attached double garage on the ground floor with 5 bedrooms and bathrooms, on the upper floor. There would be garden ground to the front, sides and rear. It would adjoin consented plot 5 to the south and consented plot 4 to the east. The house would be externally finished using riven grey concrete roof tiles, grey roofline products, grey doors and windows, white wet dash render, and reconstituted stone to the basecourse and the projecting front gable. The application is accompanied by a supporting statement which discusses viability, design and access issues. The site is within an area of ground which was cleared for development during 2008/09. It is largely enclosed from the surrounding countryside by dense mature woodland. Woodside House, a category A listed building, is located approximately 320m to the northeast. There are two other listed buildings within Woodside Estate, one category B, the other category C. Access would be taken from the existing private road which connects to Muirburn Road, which is a short distance to the north of Kings Road. The application site is approximately 1.2km from the centre of Beith. The application requires to be considered in terms of the North Ayrshire Local Development Plan (LDP) Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective), Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking), Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and Policy 16 (Protection of our Designated Sites). National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) also requires consideration. The Housing in the Countryside Note of March 2024 is a material consideration, as is the supporting information provided by the applicants. 2. Consultations and Representations The application was subject to the statutory neighbour notification process and included a notice in a local newspaper. Four comments, objecting to the proposed development, have been received. The grounds of objection are as follows: 1. The application does not accord with the adopted LDP. The site is within the countryside and the proposed development does not meet any of the criteria set out in The Countryside Objective. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 2. The site has been reclaimed by nature and is within a Provisional Scottish Wildlife Trust Wildlife Site and the proposal is considered contrary to Policy 16 of the LDP which seeks to protect designated sites. Wild plants and animals, both within the site and nearby, would be damaged. Response: Noted. See Analysis.
Page 3
3. The land is within the traditional boundary and landscape of an important listed building and the development would be damaging to its historical identity and integrity. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 4. The application has been made in the context of a viability assessment for the residential development which was consented in the past. The development was only consented to provide funding for the restoration of Woodside House and was limited to 5 houses since this was the figure deemed necessary for such works. Previous proposals, for a larger number of houses, had been refused (eg. 8 houses were refused planning permission under application 04/00784/PP). Response: Noted. See Analysis. 5. The consented development should not have been viewed in the first place as a viable development. The fact that the development remains unviable is not the planning authority's responsibility to ameliorate. Response: Noted. See Analysis. 6. There is a burden on the title deeds which require the applicants to pay the owners of Woodside House an overage for "any increase in the number of units of residential accommodation" which the applicants will be aware of. Response: This is not a material planning consideration. 7. The title deeds are burdened to provide servitude rights to discharge surface water. An additional property would materially change the amount of surface water that would be expected to be absorbed by the burn within Woodside Estate and which the owners would likely challenge. It is unclear who would be responsible for to insure against any contamination of the burn. Response: This is not a material planning consideration. 8. It is understood that the issue of waste water treatment became a fundamental obstacle for earlier developers. It is noted that a treatment plant to serve the whole development is noted on the plans because SEPA previously rejected a partial soakaway arrangement. It is thought that the current proposal may be a reason for the proposed additional house due to the increased costs of a treatment plant vs a partial soakaway with overflow to the burn. The last storm causes significant issues, with flooding and tree roots compromised due to saturated ground, leading to the loss of many ancient trees. Furthermore, additional surface water and outfall from the treatment plant could have an adverse effect on water quality at the lochs which the burn eventually drains into (Castle Semple and Barr Lochs). These lochs are a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Response: This is a regulatory matter for SEPA to determine. 9. It would be better to acknowledge that, after two decades, these plans have no future. With planning permission either in place or on allocated sites in Beith for over 400 new houses, there is no requirement for these houses to be built, especially as the effect on
Page 4
the local environment would be negative. As such, the land should be re-integrated into the Woodside Estate. Response: Noted. This is not a material planning consideration. 10. The planning application can either be treated as enabling the earlier planning permission or as a separate development judged on its own merit. It cannot be both. Response: Noted. All applications for planning permission require to be considered on their individual merits. 11. The external finishes proposed for the house are not in keeping with the other buildings in the historic Woodside Estate. Response: See Analysis. 12. The addition of the consented houses and that proposed would result in a significant increase traffic using Muirburn Road. This is a single track road with no passing places. Response: See NAC Active Travel & Transport consultation response below. 13. The suggestion by the community council that a path link be provided between the application site and the main entrance to Woodside House is not something which can be considered through a listed stone wall. Response: The suggestion made by the community council does not form part of the planning application. Consultations NAC Active Travel and Transportation - More than 5 dwellings require to be served by a road built to an adoptable standard as required by the Council's Supplementary Design Guide. Final consultation response deferred pending the provision of additional information regarding the requirement for the access road to be constructed to adoptable standard. Response: Noted. Scottish Water - no objections. There is sufficient water supply capacity to serve the proposed development. There are no public sewers in the area. Response: Noted. Provision for the treatment and disposal of waste water and surface water has been outlined in the submitted plans. Technical approval of the drainage systems serving the development would require to be obtained at the building warrant stage, with consent obtained from SEPA where necessary. Beith & District Community Council - No objection in principle. A number of points have been raised in their consultation response: 1. It seems only reasonable to consider the principle of the current application as an expansion of an existing grouping as set out in the Housing in the Countryside Guidance Note of March 2024.
Page 5
2. There would no longer be a 'greenbelt' between the town boundary and the countryside as the development would take place on land just beyond the new Persimmon housing estate currently taking place, although it is noted that the setting for the proposed house would be within a woodland area, which should be retained. 3. The community council would encourage the provision of a discrete path via the desire line to Beith by creating a pedestrian link at the southeast of the development site through the stone wall. This would improve access to the town for pedestrians. 4. The stone wall onto Mossneuk Road should also be extended into the site entrance to form a gateway with railings. 5. A greater variety of housing designs is encouraged: the suburban layout is incongruous for this rural setting. 6. Drainage details have not been provided and the specification and capacity for the private waste treatment plant should be confirmed to have sufficient capacity for all six houses in the development. 7. The additional traffic generation should be assessed in the context of the approved housing development being built by Persimmon Homes. 8. There is no information on how the proposed houses would be heated nor any details of any energy saving technologies etc. 9. No proposals for biodiversity enhancement have been included in the application. The following points are made in response to the Community Council: 1. Noted. All applications for planning permission require to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The housing in the countryside guidance note is not part of the development plan but is a material consideration that will be considered below. 2. Noted. The application is for one house. Five houses have previously been consented on the adjacent land. The woodland area between the Persimmon development and the application site would visually separate the two developments. 3. The applicant does not own the boundary wall and the landowner does not support this. 4. Noted. This is outwith the scope of the current application. 5. Noted. The only matter under consideration is the current application. The layout and house designs within the consented development are not part of the application. 6. Drainage details are specified in the building warrant for the existing development, which would require to be amended in the event of planning permission for a sixth house being approved (assuming that the sixth house would utilise the same plant). 7. See comments from NAC Active Travel & Transport, above. 8. The plans indicate the house would have an air source heat pump. The full technical specification for the heating plant and the energy efficiency measures for the house would be provided at the building warrant stage 9. Noted. The application site would provide a substantial area of private garden ground. If approved, details of measures to enhance biodiversity at the site could be required as a condition of planning permission.
Page 6
3. 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). Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking), Policy 14 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and Policy 16 (Protection of our Designated Sites) also require consideration. NPF4 also requires consideration, primarily in respect of rural housing and the setting of listed buildings. Finally, the Council's non-statutory 'Housing in the Countryside Note' of March 2024 and the applicant's supporting information are also relevant material considerations. In terms of background, planning permission was granted by the Council's Planning Committee for the erection of 5 houses as a form of enabling development to fund restoration works at Woodside House. That permission, ref. 06/00471/PP, was issued on 25th May 2006 following the signing of a Section 75 legal obligation, the main purpose of which was to bind the sale of the land for the housing development to a programme of restoration works at Woodside House. The trigger for the payment would have been the implementation of that planning permission. It should be noted that the 2006 planning permission was not implemented and has since lapsed. In 2007, a second planning application (ref. 07/01232/PP), entirely separate from and independent of the first, was submitted to the Council and was duly granted by the Planning Committee on 10th January 2008. The second planning permission was not burdened by a Section 75 obligation. The second planning permission had a different layout and house designs in comparison with the first. It has been established that works on the development consented by the second planning permission commenced during 2008/09 to include the clearance of the land and various engineering operations including the formation of roads, building plots, drainage and associated infrastructure. The development did not proceed beyond that stage. At that time, most housebuilding projects throughout the country were stalled due to the 'credit crunch' and 'financial crisis' of 2008/09. At that time, financial institutions stopped lending to developers and mortgage finance was significantly curtailed. Nonetheless, the material operations carried out to implement the planning permission remain visible on the ground and it would be open for a developer to continue the development which was consented in 2008. In 2023, an application seeking the discharge of the inoperative Section 75 obligation was submitted to the Council (ref. 23/000907/ALO). This was approved on 22nd January 2024 on the basis that the planning permission it related to had not been implemented and had lapsed. The Section 75 obligation was not triggered by the second planning permission (ref. 07/01232/PP). In the time since, several developers have expressed an interest in taking forward the project to completion. The Council, as planning authority, has consistently advised that any additional development or material variation of the consented development would not accord with the development plan. This is examined below. Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) This strategic policy, part of the spatial strategy for the LDP, sets out the circumstances where housing in the countryside may be supported in principle. These include:
Page 7
- housing for workers engaged in agriculture or forestry; This does not apply. The proposed development is for a house that would be an addition to a consented (but not yet built) housing development in the countryside. - sympathetic additions to existing well-defined nucleated groups of four or more houses in close proximity to one another and visually identifiable as a group with some common feature will be supported, up to a limit of 50% of dwellings existing in that group as of January 2005; This does not apply. No grouping of houses existed at (or beside) the site as of January 2005. Whilst consent was granted for the building of 5 houses during 2008, no houses have yet been built. - New housing in the countryside where it is a replacement or converted building or it is a house of exceptional design quality; This does not apply. There is no building on the site which could be converted or replaced, nor is it considered that the proposed house is of exceptional design quality. The house would be of suburban design, similar to those with consent on the adjoining land. Taking the above factors together, it is not considered that the proposal could be supported in terms of The Countryside Objective. As this is the determining policy which establishes whether or not the principle of the proposed development accords with the LDP, other policies are of lesser importance. However, they will be considered below for completeness. Strategic Policy 2 (Placemaking) This policy 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” and also "to safeguard, and where possible enhance environmental quality through the avoidance of adverse environmental or amenity impacts." It is considered that the proposed house would have a suburban character and that it would not be a “sympathetic addition” to the previously consented group on the basis that it would further erode the established rural setting of the Woodside Estate. Notwithstanding a selection of external finishes that would blend in with the previously consented houses, it is noted that these also have a suburban design theme. Such a typology is unlikely to be harmonious with the established woodland policy landscape of the Woodside Estate and the historic buildings within it. Impacts on amenity and setting would therefore be negative. The Council's Roads Guidance requires that developments exceeding 5 houses in the countryside require a road of adoptable standard: the required roads design and associated lighting scheme would introduce a development typology to the countryside in such a manner that the quality of place would be suburban rather than rural in character. In summary, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would accord with Strategic Policy 2. 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 makes provision for including new features that would
Page 8
improve biodiversity. Whilst there are some immature self-sown trees on the site, there are no natural features of note. The wider setting for the site contains established woodland habitats. The proposals do not include plans to create new natural features and habitats suitable for a variety of wildlife. However, subject to a suitable condition, such features could be incorporated. Subject to such a condition, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of Policy 14. Policy 16 (Protection of our Designated Sites) As noted above, the site is within the Provisional SWT Wildlife Site for Woodside. This covers an extensive area beyond the boundaries of the application site. It is not considered that the proposed development would significantly compromise the integrity of the wildlife site given that the land has previously been cleared as part of the consented housing development dating from 2008 and given the extensive area of the designation. It is not considered that the proposed development would restrict the movement of wildlife within or through the designated area. The proposed development is not contrary to Policy 16. NPF4 The application does not raise any significant strategic national or regional planning issues. Policy 17 intends for the delivery of high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Emphasis is placed on sites that have been allocated for housing in the LDP and on the reuse of brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. Proposals for new houses in rural areas will consider how the development will contribute to local living, taking into account local housing needs, economic considerations and the transport needs of the development, as appropriate. The site is located close to the edge of Beith and is within walking distance of the town. The ground was excavated as part of the consented development but has become colonised by plants and trees in recent years but is not a true brownfield site given that no previous development has taken place there. The proposed house would meet the current building standards in terms of zero direct emissions, and the building fabric would incorporate high levels of insulation, thus reducing heat loss and improving energy efficiency. It would include a home office as well as numerous other rooms, and could thus contribute to local living (eg. through home working and support for local services due to its proximity to the town, whilst enjoying a rural setting). Whilst it is not considered that there is any strong evidence of "need" for the proposed development, it would contribute to the supply and diversity of new housing in the locality. A house of the type proposed would add choice at the upper end of the local housing market. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development does not accord with Policy 17 of NPF4 since the site is not allocated for housing in the LDP. The other most relevant policy in NPF4 is 7c, which states that "development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest." It is not considered that the proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the nearby listed buildings at Woodside House (category A) Woodside Farm (category B) or Woodside Lodge (category C) due to the distances between the application site and the listed buildings in combination with the screening effect provided by the mature woodlands.
Page 9
Consideration of other material planning considerations relevant to the application follows below: Housing in the Countryside Policy Guidance Note (March 2024) In circumstances where proposed housing in the countryside meets the various development plan policy tests, the purpose of the guidance is to offer commentary on development quality, layout and design matters. In this case, the basis of the application is that the proposed house would be "read" as part of the consented development, as opposed to being a standalone house in the countryside. Whilst the design principles as set out in the applicant's supporting statement are logical as a "rounding off" of the consented development, it must be noted that this does not yet exist. This means that the proposed house could, in theory, be a standalone development and therefore requires to be determined on its own merits. With this being the case, it is considered that the proposed house would have a suburban design typology that is not encouraged by the Guidance Note of March 2024 as being appropriate for a rural setting. Supporting information submitted by the applicant The applicant states that the intention of the planning application is to make the previously consented development viable. They note that there is a gap between build costs and the sales valuations they have obtained. Without permission for a sixth house, they argue that the whole development is not viable. The site would remain disused, or plots with consent would have to be sold off individually. The proposed house would be of similar size and design to the consented houses and would be accessed off the same road. It would benefit from extensive garden ground and would be part of an exclusive small development. It is not the applicant's intention to develop the house independently of the other houses with consent. It had been the applicant's understanding that the road serving the development would remain private. However, the advice from the Roads Authority in the consultation response for this application is that the road would require to be constructed to adoptable standard (given that a sixth house would be served from it). The applicant was asked to comment on this requirement on 31st March 2025, but has not responded to date. As discussed above, the proposed development is contrary to the development plan. It is not considered that other material considerations, such as development viability, are of sufficient weight to overcome this. It is considered that the proposed house would have a suburban character and that it would not be a sympathetic addition to the previously consented group, dating back over 17 years. The Council’s Rural Design Guidance for housing has altered since that time. As such, the development of an additional house, or as a free standing house, would further erode the established rural setting of the Woodside Estate. Accordingly, the development plan takes primacy and planning permission should be refused. 4. Full Recommendation Refused
Page 10
Reason 1. The proposed development is contrary to the development plan and in particular Local Development Plan Strategic Policy 1 (The Countryside Objective) and Policy 17 (Rural Housing) of National Planning Framework 4. In reaching this determination, the material consideration of development viability in respect of an extant planning permission (ref. 07/01232/PP, approved in January 2008) for the development of five detached dwellinghouses on the adjoining land has been considered, but does not outweigh the provisions of the development plan in this instance. Allan Finlayson Chief Planning Officer For further information please contact Mr A Hume Planning Officer on 01294 324318.