Planning Adviser Background Report
North Lanarkshire Council · 19 January 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 19 January 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 22/00018/LRB Date 19/01/23 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 22/00873/FUL for the erection of a 6Ft fence to the front and side (in retrospect) at 53 Thomson Drive, Cairnhill, Airdrie was refused planning permission under delegated powers on the 15th of September 2022. 1.2 A notice of review was submitted by the appellant dated 17th of November 2022. 2. Description of Proposal and Location 2.1 Description of proposal: Erection of 6Ft Fence to the front and side (in retrospect) Location: 53 Thomson Drive, Cairnhill, Airdrie 2.2 The application site is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The site is surrounded by similar dwellings to all sides with an area of open space and access path to the south which goes from Thomson Drive to Woodburn Avenue. A school patrol sign sits against the fence at the opening of the driveway. Slightly further down the path there is a bus stop. 2.3 Site Context Google Aerial View 1
Page 3
Google Aerial View 2 2.4 Plans Location Plan
Page 4
Site Plan / Block Plan 2.5 Site Photographs Street View of Fence
Page 5
Street View of Fence Street View of Fence and Gates
Page 6
Side View of Fence Side view of Fence
Page 7
View from inside Garden Area View from inside Garden Area
Page 8
View from inside Garden Area View from applicants adjacent front Garden
Page 9
2.6 Planning Policy Local Plan Extract 2.7 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. 2.8 The relevant Policies in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and associated Guidance are detailed and can be summarised as follows: PP 3 (General Urban Area) EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) A copy of these policies in full are located the agenda papers annex. 2.9 The Report of Handling considered that the development was contrary to policies PP 3, EDQ 1 and EDQ 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan as the
Page 10
proposals were not in keeping with the established character of the area given the height of the fence and its close boarded design. Furthermore, given the height of the fence at either side of the driveway there are concerns regarding road and pedestrian safety. 2.10 National Planning Framework 4 was laid before Parliament as a revised draft for approval on 8th November 2022 meaning that although it has not yet been formally adopted it is now a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications. The weight to be given to it prior to its adoption is a matter for the decision maker. In the case of this application there is not considered to be any significant conflict between the proposals and the policies of NPF4 that require further assessment in this instance. 2.11 Reasons for Refusal The development fails to accord with polices PP 3 and EDQ 3 in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan in that it does not integrate successfully into the local area by virtue of its design, height and location. The fence as erected is also detrimental to pedestrian and road safety. Also, the fencing fails to relate well to the existing wider context or character of the area and as such it has an adverse impact on local residential amenity and road and pedestrian safety. 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 15th September 2022. 2.14 Consultations 2.15 NLC Roads Development Management: An unobstructed visibility splay of 2.4m x 35m from the vehicular access measured along the road channel of Thomson Drive is required to be maintained in both directions. As the footway appears to be 2m wide at this location, the visibility splay cannot be achieved with the proposed 6ft fence in place. It is recommended that the proposed fence within the visibility splay is lowered to no more than 1.05m in height from the road channel in the interest of road safety. 2.16 Representations 2.17 There were no representations received in relation to the application. 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:- - There should be no road safety issues in terms of visibility if driving at safe speed. - The view from the appellants property to the road poses no safety risk. - The bus stop located adjacent to the appellants property causes more of a visibility concern due to stationary buses. - The appellants off-street parking area allows them to park their 4 vehicles off road safely thus allowing pedestrians and other road users to pass safely. - The two overgrown trees on land adjacent to the appellants property cause visual distraction and visual blockage due to lack of upkeep.
Page 11
- The higher fencing was erected to stop bus users who were using the previous lower fence as a bench, depositing litter in the appellants garden and causing damage to the fence at the appellants’ expense. - The higher fence enables privacy for the garden area from buses when they stop and from pedestrians on the adjacent public footway. - Lowering of the fence would remove the intended use of the higher fence which is to keep the appellants vehicles safe and protected. - The appellant advises that if they are unable to use their driveway due to the height of the fence causing concern to road users they would be forced to park on the street which would cause even more traffic disruption. - No neighbours expressed any concerns regarding the height of the fence during the planning application. - Issues regarding visibility from the neighbours driveway would not be an issue if some neighbours did not reverse out their driveway onto the main road. - Building Standards and the Fencing installers advised the appellant that they would not require permission for a 2m high fence. - Multiple other houses in the area have 6 foot fences, walls and hedges around and to the front of their properties. - The situation has affected the appellants mentally and resulted in multiple doctors and hospital visits which are still ongoing. - The appellants said they would be willing to install safety mirrors to increase pedestrian and road user safety. - The case officer advised that the issue was a result of a neighbour complaint but no neighbours objected to the planning application. - Neighbours have been supportive of the development. The appellant has provided several photographs in support of their statement which are contained in the agenda papers annex. 2.20 Representations subsequent to notification of interested parties of the notice of Review 2.21 No further representations have been submitted in response to the submission of the Notice of Review. 2.22 Conclusion and Decision on Proceeding with the Local Review Body Decision 2.23 The appellant has requested a hearing to discuss thoroughly their reasons for erecting the fence, the reasons they did not believe they were doing anything wrong and would appreciate a face to face hearing. 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.
Page 12
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
Page 13
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
Page 14
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? 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.