_Planning Adviser Background Report
North Lanarkshire Council · 9 August 2022
Back to Local Review Body — 9 August 2022 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 21/01654/FUL Date 09/08/22 Planning Application 21/01654/FUL Planning Adviser Background Report From Pamela Humphries, Head of Planning and Regeneration E-mail WatsonMA@northlan.gov.uk Telephone Mary Ann Watson, 07581009079 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 21/01654/FUL for Erection of a 1.5m high Boarded Garden Fence (in retrospect) at 27 Southfield Road, Balloch was refused planning permission under delegated powers on the 23rd December 2021. 1.2 A notice of review was submitted by the appellant dated 18th March 2022 2. Description of Proposal and Location 2.1 Description of proposal: Erection of a 1.5m high Boarded Garden Fence (in retrospect) Location: 27 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld 2.2 The application site is a detached two-storey dwelling house located within an established residential area of Balloch, Cumbernauld. The property is situated within an open plan estate where front garden fences or other boundary treatments are not a feature. It is noted that the current fence replaced a lower 1m fence that was more of a picket fence design i.e., uprights further apart so not as solid a feature. The previous layout did not enclose the driveway. 2.3 Site Context Google Aerial View 1
Page 3
Google Aerial View 2 2.4 Plans Location Plan
Page 4
Block Plan Fence Elevation
Page 5
2.5 Site Photographs Application Site Viewed from Southfield Road Application Site Viewed from Southfield Road
Page 6
2.6 Planning Policy North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Extract Local Plan Extract 2.7 The Scottish Government confirmed on 5 July 2022 that the Scottish Ministers do not propose to issue a direction in respect of the adoption the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and that the Council can now proceed to Adopt. Accordingly, the Plan has now been Adopted by the Council and became operative on 6 July 2022. Whilst it remains possible that there may be a legal challenge to adoption from objectors to the Plan, it is unlikely that any such challenge would relate to matters directly relevant to this application. 2.8 The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017, and, therefore, can be assessed in terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. 2.9 The relevant Policies in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and associated Guidance are detailed and can be summarised as follows: General Urban Area PP 3 Policy Purpose of Place General Urban Area AD 3 Policy Amount of Development Environmental and Design Qualities EDQ 3 Policy Quality of Development A copy of these policies in full are located in section 4 Supporting Documentation of this report. 2.10 The report of handling considered that the development failed to accord with policies HCF1 A (residential Amenity) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 in that it does not integrate successfully into the local area by virtue of its design, height and location. The fencing as erected was also considered to be detrimental to pedestrian and road safety and failed to relate well to the existing
Page 7
wider context or character of the area and as such it was considered to have an adverse impact on local residential amenity and road and pedestrian safety. 2.11 Reasons for Refusal 1. The development is contrary to local plan policy and would fail to integrate successfully nor would it properly reflect the established character of the area; the erected fencing also adversely impacts the current visibility splays along Southfield Road and therefore is a road and pedestrian safety issue 2.12 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. 2.13 The application was refused planning permission on 23rd December 2021. 2.14 Consultations 2.15 NLC Traffic and Transportation: Have no objection to the proposal subject to the condition that the retrospective fence is set back to ensure that 2.5m x 60m can be provided to the left along Southfield Road, and to ensure no net detriment to the visibility splay which was previously achievable to the to the right which is approximately 2.5m x 28m. Nothing over 1.05m above the road channel should be erected within these splays. As the applicant is not willing to meet these requirements and alter the fencing (despite requests when this was being investigated as an enforcement matter and also following the submission of this retrospective application) it follows that the fence in its current form represents a road and pedestrian safety danger. 2.16 Representation 2.17 There were 4 representations in relation to this application and can be summarised as objecting to the proposal on the basis of:- - Proposal is contrary to part 1, schedule 1, class 3e of the Town and Country planning (general permitted development) (Scotland) order 1992 as amended, legislation which deals with boundary treatments to the curtilage of dwelling houses, in particular at class 3e(2) (b) (i) and (ii). - Notification should have been sent to all residents of Southfield. - A precedent will have been set should other owners decide they want to erect a 1.5m fence in front of their house. - It's is aesthetically unpleasing. - Concerns relating to safety, as the fence severely obstructs the vision of traffic coming from both directions on Southfield Road thus causing a road safety hazard for cars and pedestrians especially children. - The fence is not in keeping with the rest of the local environment as according to the missives of the properties; this is an open plan development with restrictions on the height of any fences. - This fence should not have been erected in the first instance, it is aesthetically unpleasing and I fear it may also impact on the neighbouring properties resale value or even put people off buying near to this in the first instance. - NLC had knowledge of the above infraction of the planning regulations since January 2021 and the matter still remains unresolved. - There never was any apparent intention on behalf of the Council to require the submission of a retrospect planning application. It appears that planning
Page 8
permission was to be given on the basis of a one-to-one negotiation with the property owner. - In no way can this proposal be described as a “Garden Fence”, with all that embodies. - The application shows the wrong date of completion. - The applicant has denied discussing the matter with the planning authority. - Drawings which have been submitted do not represent all dimensions of the fence. 2.18 Review Submission 2.19 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 fence is 1500mm high and compliments with the 1800mm high fence on the adjacent plot. - The fence does not exacerbate sightlines which can be seen by any site visit. 2.20 Representations subsequent to notification of interested parties of the notice of Review 2.21 A further representations which are contained in full in the agenda papers annex have been submitted in response to the submission of the Notice of Review and can be summarised as follows:- - The decision should be upheld for the reasons previously provided. - The case review is a delaying tactic. - Concerns about the impact on the open outlook of the area. - Is an eyesore. - Concerns relating to access and egress of driveways and road safety concerns. 2.22 The appellant has provided no further comments on the additional matters raised in the further representations noted above. 2.23 Conclusion and Decision on Proceeding with the Local Review Body Decision 2.24 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. 2.25 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:-
Page 9
- Planning Decision Notice. - Report of Handling - Planning Policy Documents - Consultation Response - Representations received. - Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation. 4.2 North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 Policy Extract
Page 10
Pamela Humphries Head of Planning and Regeneration
Page 11
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 ☐ 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?
Page 12
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? 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?