Planning Adviser Background Report
North Lanarkshire Council · 22 March 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 22 March 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Lanarkshire Council Report Local Review Body Does this report require to be approved? ☐ Yes ☐ No Ref 22/00232/PPP Date 22/03/23 Planning Application: Planning Adviser Background Report From Pamela Humphries, Chief Officer of Place E-mail Laingg@northlan.gov.uk Telephone Gordon Laing, 07970018874 Executive Summary This background report summarises the key considerations for review by the members of the Local Review Body in determining the appellants appeal against the delegated refusal of their application. Recommendations That the members of the Local Review Body note the content of this background report. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve the health and wellbeing of our communities Ambition statement (14) Ensure the highest standards of public protection
Page 2
1. Background 1.1 Planning Application 22/00232/PPP for a dwellinghouse with garage and access (in principle) at site at Mill Road, Allanton was refused planning permission under delegated powers on the 3rd of November 2022. 1.2 A notice of review was submitted by the appellant dated 1st February 2023. 2. Description of Proposal and Location 2.1 Description of proposal: A dwellinghouse with garage and access (in principle) Location: Site at Mill Road, Allanton 2.2 The application comprises an area of some 0.365ha of undeveloped land/woodland that is surrounded by trees with access proposed to be taken from Mill Road to the east of the application site. The application site has properties located to the north-east, east and south but these are a reasonable distance from the application site separated from the site via intervening land/woodland. 2.3 Site Context Google Aerial View 1
Page 3
Google Aerial View 2 2.4 Plans Location Plan
Page 4
Existing Block Plan Proposed Block Plan
Page 5
Existing / Proposed Site Plan
Page 6
2.5 Site Photographs Google Aerial View Site Access - Google Street View Looking North
Page 7
2.6 Planning Policy 2.7 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) adopted on the 13th February 2023 forms part of the Development Plan and is required to be taken account when determining planning applications. In circumstances where there are differences between NPF4 and the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP), it should be noted that the NPF4 policy position will supersede the policies in the NLLDP. 2.8 The Chief Planner issued a letter on 8th February 2023, providing advice on NPF4 becoming part of the statutory ‘development plan’ alongside local development plans (LDPs) with the intention for this advice to support consistency in decision making ahead of new style LDPs being in place. In relation to the application of NPF4 Policy the letter states Section 25 of the 1997 Act requires that decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Application of planning judgement to the circumstances of an individual situation remains essential to all decision making, informed by principles of proportionality and reasonableness. It is important to bear in mind NPF4 must be read and applied as a whole. The intent of each of the 33 policies is set out in NPF4 and can be used to guide decision-making. Conflicts between policies are to be expected. Factors for and against development will be weighed up in the balance of planning judgement. It is recognised that it may take some time for planning authorities and stakeholders to get to grips with the NPF4 policies, and in particular the interface with individual LDP policies. As outlined above, in the event of any incompatibility between a provision of NPF and a provision of an LDP, whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. Provisions that are contradictory or in conflict would be likely to be considered incompatible. Initial assessments are that while some LDP policies, particularly ones with thresholds for development derived from Clydeplan, will not be wholly applicable from the 13th of February, NPF and LDP policies are generally complimentary. In the case of this application the 33 Policies within NPF4 are presented for members consideration and it is for members to make a judgement on their applicability. As an aid the following policies may be considered to have particular relevance to this application: Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 Biodiversity Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees Policy 12 Zero Waste Policy 14 Design, quality and place Policy 17 Rural homes Policy 23 Health and Safety Policy 29 Rural Development A copy of these policies in full are located the agenda papers annex.
Page 8
2.9 North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Local Plan Extract 2.10 The relevant Policies in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and associated Guidance can be summarised as follows: PP 5 Countryside Policy Purpose of Place AD 5 Countryside Policy Amount of Development EDQ 1 Policy Site Appraisal EDQ 3 Policy Quality of Development A copy of these policies in full are located the agenda papers annex. 2.11 The report of handling considered that the proposed development if it were to go ahead would not be compliant with development plan policy and in particular Countryside policy PP5 (in particular aspects relating to extension of settlements or clusters, compatibility with countryside, suitability in relation to other centres, and fit with scale and nature of existing developments). It would also not be compliant with Environmental Design Qualities policy EDQ 1 and it was considered that no adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations had been demonstrated to merit a departure from the development plan in this instance. 2.12 Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal is contrary to local development plan, as it constitutes inappropriate, sporadic, and isolated development in the Countryside. It does not meet the appropriateness criteria under the local development plan policy PP5 (Countryside)
Page 9
or the standards of the Environmental and Design Qualities policy EDQ 1 and no adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated to merit a departure from the development plan. 2.13 The report of handling recommended that the proposal should be refused for the reasons outlined in both the Reasoned Justification and in the Reasons for Refusal contained within the agenda papers annex. 2.14 The application was refused planning permission on the 3rd of November 2022. 2.15 Consultations 2.16 NLC Pollution Control: No objection subject to condition that a site investigation report be submitted for approval. 2.17 NLC Roads: No response received. 2.18 Representations 2.19 There were no representations received in relation to the application. 2.20 Review Submission 2.21 The applicant has submitted a Review Statement and supporting documents contained in full within the agenda papers annex. The statement expresses, in summary, the applicant’s view that:- - The formal reason for refusal confirms the need of compliance with policies PP5 and EDQ1, there is no mention on the lack of compliance with policy EDQ3 as a reason to deny planning approval. However, the handling report appears to penalise the application and refuse planning given policy EDQ3 is not satisfied. - The supporting statement gave the planners sufficient information to understand the appellants requirements of the house and suitably condition an approval. - Denying approval based on a lack of an application not relevant to an outline planning application seems unreasonable. - At the time of the application the appellant had not yet purchased the land however the land deal was subject to receipt of planning permission for the house. The timeline for a decision was extended twice by the planners and the planning process had taken from the 1st March 2022 to the 4th November 2022 when it was originally meant to be determined by the 5th of July 2022. - Given the elongated planning timeline the appellant had to decide to either lose out on the land or risk purchase without confirmation of planning approval, a risk that they consider should never have been enforced upon them. - The appellant has purchased land with now temporary accommodation at huge expense and a belated refusal based on non-compliance with policy that that they wholly disagree with. - The planners own assessment as highlighted and underscored above confirms that the proposals are suitable under PP5 providing policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 are satisfied. - The refusal notice gave no mention of policy EDQ3, why then is the proposal being assessed under this policy when the nature of outline planning cannot be fully assessed without full planning. Again, surely approval with conditions at this stage allows the appellant and planners to collectively ensure EDQ3 is fully satisfied of the submission of a subsequent application for full planning.
Page 10
- Assuming EDQ1 & EDQ3 are satisfied, we assume the decision for refusal of planning can be overturned however our query about an inability to assess under EDQ3 remains. - It is clear even from the submission the scale and nature of the proposal are very much in keeping with the existing development, so much so there were no objections from any nearby residents or statutory consultees. - This proposal is not an expansion of an existing settlement can be argued in that the surrounding area is a collection of sporadic isolated developments already rather than an extension to an existing settlement. Currently there are a number of small single dwellings along Mill Road. The addition of this new dwelling not only is sympathetic to the existing area but will also be completely hidden from all other properties given its location in the wooded area approximately 150m off Mill Road. - The proposals will have no effect on any existing properties in the surrounding area. - There may not be a locational need for North Lanarkshire council however there is certainly a locational need for the appellant. The idea of building an Eco home in a rural area has been something they have looked to do for some time, the design and location of the dwelling and the reinvestment in tree and landscaping is an improvement to the area. The locational need of the area from the appellants perspective is further enhanced by the position they find themselves in due to unacceptable planning timelines. - It would be difficult to argue that any single residential dwelling can provide ‘significant’ economic benefits however local contractors and suppliers may benefit from work during the build. Very much short-term economic benefits admittedly however certain local suppliers and contractors would see an increase in business. - The information in the supporting statement provided confirmation that the general design would very much be to a high standard and performance in terms of its ECO aspects whilst having a minimum effect on the surrounding area. - This location would have zero effect on any of the existing properties and the removal of any tree or landscaping would be replaced. - The approved applications 20/00190/PPP for a Single dwellinghouse (in principle) approved with conditions and 21/00094/MSC Dwellinghouse with private domestic sewage and waste water treatment plant approved with conditions were for the erection of a single 1.5 storey residential dwellings along Mill Road with packages sewer treatment plant and driveway access prove that a precedent for this development has already been established only two years ago further supports why the Appellant thinks this decision should be overturned. - The Appellant queries whether the adoption of the Local plan mid application is the reason why the proposals were considered no longer acceptable and as such were the issues with new policy wording as confirmed by planning (to explain further delays) the reason why this is no longer acceptable. - Given the impossibility to fully assess the proposals under EDQ3 the Appellant considers that given the planners knew that the application was for a dwelling “in principal” it is unfair to refuse under a policy that cannot be fully assessed at this stage. - At no point did the planners request further information regarding an inability to assess against policy EDQ3. The information provided in the application pack however did contain sufficient information that the proposals would be looking to fully adhere to EDQ3 in that it would include aspects related to creating areas which are safe for all road users with appropriate parking included within the development and where necessary the mitigation of pollution impacts within policy. - The Appellant considers that given compliance was demonstrated with policy EDQ1 and EDQ3 in a limited capacity due to the nature of an outline planning application they would suggest that the relevant information was indeed provided to show compliance with policy PP5 and request planning be overturned and granted with conditions.
Page 11
2.22 Representations subsequent to notification of interested parties of the Notice of Review 2.23 No further representations have been submitted in response to the submission of the Notice of Review. 2.24 Conclusion and Decision on Proceeding with the Local Review Body Decision 2.25 As with all applications each case requires to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the development plan policies unless material considerations outweigh the provisions of these policies. These are the factors and issues which require to be considered by the Local Review Body when determining this application. 2.26 The members are now requested to consider whether sufficient information is provided within this LRB Report and the associated annex to proceed with the hearing. 3. Measures of success 3.1 That the information provided is sufficient for the Local Review Body to determine the appellants review submission. 4. Supporting documentation 4.1 The Planning Adviser Background Report will be accompanied by additional supporting information contained within the background papers and includes:- - Planning Decision Notice. - Report of Handling - Planning Policy Documents - Consultation Response - Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation. Pamela Humphries Chief Officer of Place 5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐
Page 12
5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact?
Page 13
5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services.