(b) Planning Decision Notice, Report of Handling and Reference Documents (Pages 89-180)
Perth and Kinross Council · 18 December 2023
Back to Local Review Body — 18 December 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
4(ii)(b) LRB-2023-39 LRB-2023-39 23/00532/FLL - Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works, land north of 31 Main Street, Keltybridge PLANNING DECISION NOTICE (included in applicant’s submission, pages 79-80) REPORT OF HANDLING REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
REPORT OF HANDLING DELEGATED REPORT Ref No 23/00532/FLL Ward No P8- Kinross-shire Due Determination Date 20th June 2023 Extended to 20th August 2023 Draft Report Date 26th July 2023 Report Issued by cm Date 4/8/23 PROPOSAL: Erection of a dwellinghouse and associated works LOCATION: Land North Of 31 Main Street, Keltybridge SUMMARY: This report recommends refusal of the application as the development is considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations apparent which justify setting aside the Development Plan. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The application is for a dwellinghouse on land to the north of 31 Main Street, on the east side of Main Street, Keltybridge. A split-level dwellinghouse is proposed with a single storey element facing Main Street (west) and 2-storeys to the north and east as the land drops by some 3m from Main Street (west) to the east boundary of the site. The north and west elevations are to be finished in rubble stonework and the remainder in smooth white render. Clay pantiles are proposed on the roof with skew walls on each gable. Vehicular access is from Main Street (west) with 2no in curtilage parking spaces proposed. A 1.2m-1.8m high close board fence is proposed on the south boundary next to a neighbouring dwellinghouse. A Tree Survey Report and a Landscape Report have been submitted with 22no trees to be removed to enable the development. 46no compensatory trees are proposed with 20no to be planted on the north and east boundary of the site and 26no trees are proposed off-site as outlined in the Tree Protection Plan and Compensatory Planting Plan prepared by BNTW Scotland dated 17/3/23 (drawing 09). There are dwellinghouses to the south and on the west side of Main Street and to the north and east of the application site is farmland. SITE HISTORY 00/01049/FUL Erection of 2 semi-detached dwellinghouses and associated carparking and landscaping 2 November 2000 Application Withdrawn 00/01380/FUL Erection of a house 2 November 2000 Application Refused
Page 4
00/01558/FUL Siting of temporary caravan 1 December 2000 Application Withdrawn 05/00204/FUL Temporary siting of a site office/storage cabin 27 April 2005 Application Approved 05/02299/FUL Erection of a dwellinghouse with potential for use as guest house 16 February 2006 Application Refused and Appeal Dismissed 27 June 2006 12/01340/FLL Erection of 4 dwellinghouses at Site 5B 21 November 2013 Application Withdrawn 13/02177/FLL Erection of 2no. dwellinghouses 18 November 2015 Application Approved 17/01593/FLL Erection of 2no. dwellinghouses (revised design) 22 November 2017 Application Approved 18/00170/FLL Erection of 2no. dwellinghouses (revised design) (in part retrospect) 29 March 2018 Application Withdrawn 20/00201/FLL Erection of 2 dwellinghouses (in part retrospect) Application Approved 22/01945/FLL Erection of dwellinghouse and associated works 19 January 2023 Application Withdrawn DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Development Plan for the area comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 (2019) (LDP2). National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is the Scottish Government’s long-term spatial strategy with a comprehensive set of national planning policies. This strategy sets out how to improve people’s lives by making sustainable, liveable and productive spaces. NPF4 was adopted on 13 February 2023. NPF4 has an increased status over previous NPFs and comprises part of the statutory development plan. The Council’s assessment of this application has considered the following policies of NPF4: Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policy 3: Biodiversity Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees
Page 5
Policy 7: Historic Assets and Places Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Policy 13: Sustainable Transport Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place Policy 16: Quality Homes Policy 17: Rural Homes Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2 – Adopted November 2019 The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is the most recent statement of Council policy and is augmented by Supplementary Guidance. The principal policies are: Policy 1A: Placemaking Policy 1B: Placemaking Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries Policy 27A: Listed Buildings Policy 32: Embedding Low & Zero Carbon Generating Technologies in New Development Policy 40B: Forestry, Woodland and Trees: Trees, Woodland and Development Policy 41: Biodiversity Policy 42: Green Infrastructure Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage Policy 53C: Water Environment and Drainage: Surface Water Drainage Policy 58A: Contaminated and Unstable Land: Contaminated Land Policy 58B: Contaminated and Unstable Land: Unstable Land Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals
Page 6
Statutory Supplementary Guidance Supplementary Guidance - Flood Risk and Flood Risk Assessments (adopted in 2021) Supplementary Guidance - Forest & Woodland Strategy (adopted in 2020) Supplementary Guidance - Green & Blue Infrastructure (adopted in 2020) Supplementary Guidance - Landscape (adopted in 2020) Supplementary Guidance - Placemaking (adopted in 2020) OTHER POLICIES Non-Statutory Guidance Planning Guidance - Planning & Biodiversity NATIONAL GUIDANCE The Scottish Government expresses its planning policies through The National Planning Framework, Planning Advice Notes, Creating Places, Designing Streets, National Roads Development Guide and a series of Circulars. Planning Advice Notes The following Scottish Government Planning Advice Notes (PANs) and Guidance Documents are of relevance to the proposal: PAN 40 Development Management PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 68 Design Statements PAN 69 Planning and Building standards Advice on Flooding PAN 75 Planning for Transport PAN 77 Designing Safer Places Creating Places 2013 Creating Places is the Scottish Government’s policy statement on architecture and place. It sets out the comprehensive value good design can deliver. It notes that successful places can unlock opportunities, build vibrant communities and contribute to a flourishing economy and set out actions that can achieve positive changes in our places. Designing Streets 2010 Designing Streets is the policy statement in Scotland for street design and changes the emphasis of guidance on street design towards place-making and away from a system focused upon the dominance of motor vehicles. It was created to support the Scottish Government’s place-making agenda, alongside Creating Places.
Page 7
National Roads Development Guide 2014 This document supports Designing Streets and expands on its principles and is considered to be the technical advice that should be followed in designing and approving of all streets including parking provision. CONSULTATION RESPONSES External The Coal Authority – An initial objection was withdrawn on submission and review of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment. Scottish Water - No objection. Internal Biodiversity/Tree Officer - Object due to a lack of information on protected species. The response noted that the application cannot be assessed until more information is provided on protected species and justification of 22 trees being removed. The submitted tree survey proposes the removal of the majority of trees on the site for arboricultural reasons with replacement planting. Query the removal of all 22 trees as they provide an attractive tree belt and although may not be good in terms of arboriculture, will still be of biodiversity benefit. As trees become older, they become more suited for roosting bats, nesting birds and fungi. 6 trees are described as Category U trees and must be removed for the health and safety reasons, but query whether the design could have incorporated more of the trees from the planning stage. Avoidance of tree loss should always be the first consideration and retaining existing habitat is always better than creating new. For the loss of 22 trees, 46 new are proposed. This is not in accordance with the ratio of 1:3 for every tree lost as outlined in the PKC Planning for Nature Supplementary Guidance. No ecological survey of the proposed development area or assessment of the likely effects from this development on habitats and species was submitted alongside this application. Policy 41 states that a detailed survey undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist should be submitted where one or more protected or priority species is known or suspected. There are records of red squirrel within 150m of the site and this should have ensured that an ecological survey was submitted. In addition, mature trees in poorer condition may contain bat roosts. A survey to ascertain the presence of bats roosts in trees is required. Further survey cannot be conditioned as advised by the Scottish Government. The full impact of a development on protected species or habitats must be known prior to planning consent being issued. A Biodiversity Enhancement Report has been submitted but without a baseline survey of the site, it is unclear these recommendations will result in biodiversity enhancement. The standard measures they propose should be incorporated into any new development. Transportation And Development - No objection subject to conditions. Development Contributions Officer - No requirement.
Page 8
Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - No potential sources of contamination on review of historical records. Informative recommended. REPRESENTATIONS 10 representations were received objecting to the application. The material planning issues raised are as follows – Loss of greenspace Detrimental impact on use of community greenspace and local viewpoint Adverse effect on visual amenity Contrary to Development Plan policy Loss of open space Over intensive development Inappropriate Land Use Road safety, traffic congestion concerns Overlooking, loss of privacy and impact on residential amenity Poor design, design not in keeping with character of the local area The issues raised are addressed in the report. The representations also raised the long-term use of the site as a compound for storing and dumping building materials and waste during construction works in the village. This has long been an eyesore site for residents. The loss of view from a dwellinghouse was raised as an issue which is not a material planning consideration. Additional Statements Received: Screening Opinion EIA Not Required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Environmental Report Not applicable Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations Habitats Regulations AA Not Required Design Statement or Design and Access Statement Submitted Report on Impact or Potential Impact eg Flood Risk Assessment Submitted Contamination Reports and Tree survey Reports APPRAISAL Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises NPF4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. The relevant policy considerations are outlined in the policy section above and are considered in more detail below. In terms of other material considerations, involving considerations of
Page 9
the Council’s other approved policies and supplementary guidance, these are discussed below only where relevant. The determining issues in this case are whether; the proposal complies with development plan policy; or if there are any other material considerations which justify a departure from policy. Policy Appraisal National and local placemaking policy encourages, promotes and facilitates well designed development. NPF4 Policy 14 Design Quality and Place requires development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and be consistent with the six qualities of successful places – Healthy; Pleasant; Connected; Distinctive; Sustainable and Adaptable. LDP2 Policy 1 Placemaking states that development must contribute positively to the quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. A split-level dwellinghouse is proposed with a single storey element of the build fronting Main Street (west). There is a 3m level change from Main Street to the east boundary of the site and the design reflects this. The upper level contains the main open plan living area and on the lower level are 3 bedrooms and a utility/store/plant room. The west and north elevations are to be finished in rubble stonework and the east and south elevations are to be finished in smooth white render. The roof is to be clay pantiles with PV panels. The Design Statement notes that the choice of materials complements the existing architecture and provides statement at the northern entrance to the village. The finishing materials acknowledge the finish of the new cottages to the south. However, the mass, form and design of the L-shaped split-level dwellinghouse is poor, incongruous and not in keeping with the traditional styled cottages and the surrounding historic village. This is a prominent site and the 2-storey north elevation finished in rubble stonework will be the main view on the southern approach into the village. Landscaping and trees may help soften the impact of the stone mass however this is likely to take several years to mature to provide the level of screening required to reduce the visual impact. This is acknowledged in the further supporting information submitted during the application process which states the 2-storey element will only really be visible from the field bordering the site. Once the proposed landscaping has been implemented and matured the view of this part of the house will be considerably reduced. This is a distinctive green site on the east side of the village which establishes the transition from the village to open countryside. The loss of this distinctive green space will have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenity of the village. The proposed development is poorly designed and will not contribute positively to the surrounding built and natural environment and is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places.
Page 10
The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 14 Design Quality and Place and LDP2 Policy 1 Placemaking and related Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020). Residential Amenity Proposed Dwellinghouse The split-level design runs with the sloping site. However, no detail has been provided on the landscaping and engineering works required to manage the sloping site including the rear garden. The Tree Survey (paragraph 1.1) reports that ‘The Client has also requested Arboricultural (Ecological) suggestions to enhance the general garden area including reinstatement of the bank/steep slope after excavation.’ The proposed plans show access to the garden will be by stepped landscape features and retaining walls adjoin the proposed dwellinghouse. A 2m difference between the proposed rear garden on the east boundary and the garden ground of the neighbouring dwellinghouse is shown with limited detail of how this level change is to be managed within the site. The bedrooms are on the lower level and residential amenity and daylight may be negatively affected by the split-level design and retaining structures. Existing Dwellinghouse There is a cottage style dwellinghouse to the immediate south of the application site (20/00201/FLL). The approved site plan for the cottage shows a 900mm timber fence on the boundary (north) with a 1500mm gap between the fence and the cottage. The fence offers separation between the cottage and the green space to the north and windows in the main living space of the cottage overlook this area providing an attractive outlook. The conditions attached to the planning permission 20/00201/FLL aimed to ensure a landscape plan was implemented and maintained in the interests of visual amenity. There are no windows on the south gable of the proposed split-level dwellinghouse and a 1.8m high close board timber fence is proposed on the boundary between the existing and proposed dwellinghouse (south). The proximity of the timber fence and the appearance of the blank gable will be overbearing and reduce daylight through windows in the main ground floor living space of the neighbouring cottage. The proposal will have a detrimental effect on existing residential amenity. The proposal is poorly designed and will be detrimental to residential amenity. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place and LDP2 Policy 1 Placemaking and related Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020). Settlement Boundary LDP2 notes that a tight settlement boundary has been drawn to limit any significant future growth of Keltybridge. The application site is not in the settlement boundary and forms a distinctive boundary between the residential area of the village of Keltybridge and open farmland.
Page 11
In respect of LDP2 Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries the site adjoins the boundary. This policy states that development on sites that adjoin settlement boundaries will only be permitted where the proposal is: (a) in accordance with Policy 8: Rural Business and Diversification and does not adjoin a principal settlement boundary; (b) justifiable on the basis of a specific operational and locational need and it can be demonstrated that there are no suitable sites available within the settlement boundary; or (c) required to address a shortfall in housing land supply in line with Policy 24: Maintaining an Effective Housing Land Supply: and (d) will not result in adverse effects, either individually or in combination, on the integrity of a European designated site(s). The proposed development does not meet any of the criteria above and therefore it does not satisfy LDP2 Policy 6. Further, the proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 16 Quality Homes as the site is not allocated in LDP2, it is not in the settlement boundary and the proposal does not address identified gaps in provision. Brownfield NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes supports development for new homes in rural areas which is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention (Policy 17 a(ii)). The Tree Survey reports 22 trees within the development site with some early mature broadleaves and beech trees forming the eastern boundary as a hedge/screen and records these as overgrown and elongated. The applicant’s proposal outlined in 2020 is to rewild the site (20/00201/FLL). There is evidence that the site has and will return to a natural state without intervention. The proposed dwellinghouse is poorly designed, is not in keeping with the character of the area and there is evidence that the site is rewilding naturally. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 17a(ii) Rural Homes. The application form and the applicant’s supporting statement report the site as brownfield. NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings states at Policy 9a that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. The Design Statement considers the removal of contamination and the new landscape proposals should significantly improve the quality of this part of the village. As noted previously in the report, the site forms a distinctive boundary between the residential area of the village of Keltybridge and open farmland. An attractive green
Page 12
edge to the settlement was to be retained and enhanced as part of the consent for 2no dwellinghouses (20/00201/FLL). The development requires the removal of 22no trees and the Biodiversity Officer highlights that a Biodiversity Enhancement Report has been submitted but without a baseline survey of the site. There are records of red squirrel within 150m of the site and this should have ensured that an ecological survey was submitted. In addition, mature trees in poorer condition may contain bat roosts. The removal of 22no trees to enable the development of a dwellinghouse on the site is not sustainable. There is evidence that the site has and is naturalising and is therefore of biodiversity value. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings. Landscape and Visual Amenity The site was historically zoned as ‘village setting’ where agricultural uses or green uses would be encouraged. The open view on the east side of Main Street, in contrast to the built development on the west side, was part of the character of the village and to be preserved. In historic development plans development northwards on the east side of Main Street was considered to erode the character of the village and therefore there was a presumption against built development on land within which the site is located. The consent of 2no dwellinghouses to the south of the site was approved on the basis that the application site would be retained as a green buffer to mitigate the visual impact of the new dwellinghouses and would be enhanced by further planting to provide an attractive green edge to the settlement on the east side of Main Street as it transitioned into open farmland. To enable the development the removal of 22 trees on the site is proposed. The Biodiversity Officer’s comments highlight that the trees offer an attractive tree belt and although may not be good in terms of arboriculture, they will still be of biodiversity benefit. The proposed development does not respect the village setting and the further erosion of a green use on the site will have a detrimental impact on the character of the village and visual amenity. Roads and Access Transportation and Development have no objection to the proposal. The vehicle access to the public road network for the property will be via the existing vehicle access off Main Street. Parking will be provided on site for two vehicles, which meets the requirements of the National Roads Development Guide. Conditions are recommended to ensure further detail is submitted to show that turning facilities shall be provided within the site to enable all vehicles to enter and leave in a forward-facing gear and the vehicular access shall be formed in
Page 13
accordance with Perth & Kinross Council's Road Development Guide Type B Figure 5.6 access detail, of Type A Road construction detail. The proposal satisfies NPF4 Policy 13: Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 60B: Transport Standards and Accessibility Requirements: New Development Proposals, subject to conditions. Drainage and Flooding Transportation and Development note that the applicant has advised that the foul drain connection will be made to the Scottish Water Sewer and any works to connect to the sewer will require the correct permits to be in place, prior to any works commencing within the public road network. It is noted in the application response from Scottish Water that only a foul connection can be supplied to the applicant, therefore a surface water disposal strategy will need to be sought as there is no connection for surface water from within the site. Planning conditions should ensure that no surface water is discharged to the public road from the vehicular access and that storm water drainage is disposed of by means of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System in line with best management practices. The proposal satisfies LDP2 Policy 53B: Water Environment and Drainage: Foul Drainage and Policy 53C: Surface Water Drainage, subject to conditions. Contamination The Contaminated Land Officer advised that a search of the historical mapping has not identified any potential sources of contamination likely to impact upon the proposed development site. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy themselves that the ground conditions are suitable for the development for which planning consent has been granted. The Coal Authority is a statutory consultee and were consulted as the site falls within a defined Development High Risk Area. The Coal Authority records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application, specifically both actual and probable shallow coal mine workings and probable shallow coal mine workings associated with a thick coal seam outcrop, which may have been worked from the surface. Voids and broken ground associated with such workings can pose a risk of ground instability and may give rise to the emission of mine gases. The Coal Authority initially sent an objection to the application and considered that the applicant should submit a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report (response dated 27 April 2023). This report was received and submitted for review to The Coal Authority on 2 June 2023. The Coal Authority noted that the Mine Workings Remediation Report (August 2017, prepared by Groundshire Ltd), confirmed that previously identified shallow mine workings beneath the site have been stabilised. As a result, The Coal Authority withdrew its objection to the planning application (response dated 8 June 2023).
Page 14
The application satisfies NPF4 Policy 9c Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings and LDP2 Policy 58A: Contaminated and Unstable Land: Contaminated Land and Policy 58B: Contaminated and Unstable Land: Unstable Land. Conservation Considerations LDP2 Policy 27A: Listed Buildings requires the layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use of any development which will affect a listed building or its setting to be appropriate to the building’s character, appearance and setting. The proposed development site is to the east of a terrace of category C listed cottages. While there is no direct impact on the listed buildings, the proposed new dwellinghouse will appear prominent in their immediate setting in views from the north. As highlighted previously, the stone finish on the north elevation of the proposed new build will be a prominent feature on the approach south into the village. The proposed development on a prominent site in the village will have a detrimental effect on the setting of the listed buildings on the east side of Main Street. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 7c Historic Assets and Places and LDP2 Policy 27A: Listed Buildings. Natural Heritage and Biodiversity NPF4 responds to a growing nature crisis and the sustainable use of natural assets which has formed the foundations for the spatial strategy set out in the national planning framework. The national policies relevant to the proposal include NPF4 Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis, Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, Policy 3: Biodiversity and Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees and Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure. These national planning policies give significant weight to the global climate emergency, consider a healthy natural environment is key to reducing emissions, aim to protect biodiversity and natural assets and support the expansion of blue and green infrastructure. To enable the proposed development 22no trees are to be removed and an indicative compensatory planting plan has been submitted. The indicative plan proposes approximately 20no new trees on the east boundary of the site and 26no trees are proposed off-site to the west. The exact details of the off-site provision are unknown – specific detail was requested during the application process and no response was received. Off-site provision is not acceptable, and the planning agent was advised of this. The Biodiversity Officer highlights the trees will be of biodiversity benefit and that the number of replacement trees is not in accordance with the non-statutory Planning Guidance – Planning and Biodiversity. Further, no ecological survey of the proposed development area or assessment of the likely effects from the development on habitats and species was submitted. There are records of red squirrel, a protected species, within 150m of the site and mature trees in poorer condition may contain bat roosts.
Page 15
The loss of trees and habitat to enable the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the natural environment and biodiversity including protected species and lead to the fragmentation of an existing network of green infrastructure. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis, NPF4 Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, NPF4 Policy 3: Biodiversity, NPF4 Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees and NPF4 Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure and LDP2 Policy 1: Placemaking, LDP2 Policy 40B: Trees, Woodland and Development, LDP2 Policy 41: Biodiversity and LDP2 Policy 42: Green Infrastructure. Material Considerations 1.Planning History The wider site has been subject to development proposals over a 20-year period which have been assessed against the adopted development plan in place at the time. The planning history is a material consideration, and a review of the relevant applications is set out below - Planning reference 05/02299/FUL – Plot adjacent to 27 Main Street – Erection of a dwellinghouse with potential for use as a guest house - Refused and Appeal dismissed 27 June 2006. The development plan at the time comprised of the Perth and Kinross Structure Plan 2003 and the Kinross Area Local Plan 2004. The site was zoned in the Kinross Area Local Plan as ‘Village Setting’ as land within which the continuance of agricultural uses or ‘green uses’ would be encouraged to maintain the setting of the village. There was a presumption against any form of built development. The appeal notice noted that the site marks the transition from traditional properties to open countryside on the east side of Main Street. It was recognised at the time as an area set aside for ‘village setting’ to be protected and retained as green open space despite its previous past history of residential use and garden ground. Planning reference 12/01340/FLL – Plot adjacent to 27 Main Street – Erection of 4no dwellinghouses – Withdrawn. The planning agent engaged with Planning to consider the number of houses appropriate for the site and the design and layout prior to submission of a further application. Planning Reference 13/02177/FLL – 2no dwellinghouses approved by Committee. The proposed development was assessed under the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2014 and Housing in the Countryside policy under the relevant category ‘Rural Brownfield Land’. This was supplemented at the time by The Housing in the Countryside Guide 2012. A historic map submitted by the applicant showed the site was previously occupied by buildings and the site was overgrown with hard-standing defined by hedging walls and trees. The proposal was assessed under this policy as small-scale development which would environmentally improve the village by removing dereliction, spoil and foul drainage infrastructure.
Page 16
The proposed site plan shows that the area to north (application site) was to be landscaped to create a green buffer and screen the proposed new cottage style dwellinghouses and soften the visual impact. Condition 7 required the landscaping and planting scheme to be implemented within 6 months of completion of the development. A Notice of Initiation was received 15 July 2016. Planning Reference 17/01593/FLL – the revised design for the 2no dwellinghouses to include front porches was approved. The report of handling highlighted that the site is on the edge of the settlement boundary and contrary to policy PM4 of the Local Development Plan 2014. However, it noted that the application was a change in design on an extant permission for 2no dwellinghouses. The submitted landscape plan was the same as that submitted with 13/02177/FLL with beech saplings on the field boundary to be maintained and enhanced with further planting and a landscaped area to the north planted with native species to increase local biodiversity. Condition 7 approved the landscape plan to be completed within the first available planting season after the completion of the development or bringing into use of the development whichever is earlier. Planning Reference 20/00201/FLL – 2no dwellinghouses (in part retrospect) approved. The report of handling highlighted that the site is on the edge of Keltybridge and as such Policy 6 Settlement Boundaries of the Local Development Plan 2019 applies. This policy limits built development to being within the settlement boundary. The report noted that the proposal is contrary to that policy however the extant permission is a significant material consideration that in this case outweighs the adopted Development Plan. This application approved an enlargement to the porches (approved 17/01593/FLL) as well as changes to the location of dormer windows to the front and rear of the properties. The proposed site plan shows the area to the north to be left to rewild and allow access to the septic tank through a padlocked gate. The report of handling noted that limited information was provided as to how this revised landscape plan would affect the previously approved landscape plan and the submission of a detailed landscape plan and a landscape management plan were secured by condition – Conditions 3 and 4 refer. No landscape plan or landscape management plan have been submitted. Although the houses are completed and occupied no notice of completion of development has been received for 20/00201/FLL. The planning history is a material consideration as it highlights the green use of the site is a distinctive part of the character of the village and has been protected as such. It also highlights that the plans to enhance the green use/buffer/landscaped area on the application site have been diluted between the 2013 application and the 2020 application. A full landscape plan was initially proposed with the beech hedge on the boundary to be retained and enhanced through the planting of native species and further planting of native species proposed within the site. However, the proposal shown in the application approved in 2020 is for the area of ground to rewild naturally. Further, within the site there is an existing septic tank for housing on the opposite side of the road and this was to be removed as shown on the original plans, and the 2020 application shows an existing brick built septic tank and soakaway to remain in the site.
Page 17
The submission of a landscape plan for review and approval by the Council as Planning Authority was to enhance and protect the site as an attractive green buffer between the new dwellinghouses and the edge of the village and the open farmland. The site has been the subject of an enforcement enquiry on completion of the dwellinghouses and enforcement action was put on hold due to the current application and the previously withdrawn application for a dwellinghouse (22/01945/FLL). It is proposed that the landscape planning conditions 3 and 4 attached to 20/00201/FLL are enforced to ensure that an attractive green buffer is created and maintained on the edge of the village to protect its character and setting. The proposed dwellinghouse does not satisfy the development plan. The historic protection and retention of the site for a green use is a material consideration and is of sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application. 2.Objections to the planning application Ten objections have been received to the application including one from the Cleish and Blairadam Community Council. The Community Council objection noted the planning history of the site and the potential loss of an area of amenity, biodiversity and environmental quality in the local area. This potential loss of a local area of environmental quality was repeated in the objection letters and that the proposal is considered to directly contravene the original basis which the planning for the 2no adjacent dwellinghouses was granted. The matters raised in the letters of objection are a material planning consideration and of sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application. 3.Applicant’s Supporting Statement A Design Statement was submitted with the application and further supporting information was received during the application process including the applicant’s response to the matters raised in the letters of objection. The further information states the 2-storey element will only be visible from the field and that once the landscaping has matured the view of the house will be considerably reduced. The applicant states the site is part of a wider site granted planning consent under the Housing in the Countryside policy guidance as rural brownfield land. The site is made-up ground and requires remediation – it contains an old septic tank and is not rural greenfield land but rural brownfield. It highlights that in terms of sustainability it is important to use brownfield land rather than greenfield for new housing and references NPF4. The proposed dwellinghouse will allow full remediation of the site with the removal of the old septic tank and made-up ground. In respect of rewilding, the statement highlights that rewilding without removing any contamination from past uses is not sustainable. In response, at the time of the original application for 2no dwellinghouses the site was considered brownfield in respect of the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2014 in place at the time. As noted in the planning history above, the subsequent applications to modify the design of the dwellinghouses were contrary to
Page 18
development plan policy as the site is not in the settlement boundary. The extant permission was a material consideration. The matters raised in the applicant’s supporting information have been addressed in the report above and the current application does not satisfy NPF4 and the Perth and Kinross Local Development Plan 2019. There are no material considerations to justify approval of the application. Developer Contributions The Developer Contributions Guidance is not applicable to this application and therefore no contributions are required in this instance. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposal is likely to be minimal and limited to the construction phase of the development. VARIATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 32A This application was not varied prior to determination. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS None required. DIRECTION BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS None applicable to this proposal. CONCLUSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION To conclude, the application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. Account has been taken of the relevant material considerations and none has been found that would justify overriding the Development Plan. Accordingly, the proposal is refused on the grounds identified below. Reasons 1. The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the distinct character and visual amenity of the village. The proposed development is poorly designed, will be detrimental to residential amenity and will not contribute positively to the surrounding built and natural environment. The proposal is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 14 Design Quality and Place and LDP2
Page 19
Policy 1 Placemaking and related Placemaking Supplementary Guidance (2020). 2. The site is not an allocated housing site in LDP2, it is not in the settlement boundary of Keltybridge and the proposal does not address an identified gap in provision and therefore the proposed development does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 16 Quality Homes and LDP2 Policy 6: Settlement Boundaries. 3. The removal of the majority of trees on the site to enable the development of a dwellinghouse is not sustainable as there is evidence that the site has and is naturalising and is of biodiversity value. The proposal is poorly designed and is not in keeping with the character of the area. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings and NPF4 Policy 17a(ii) Rural Homes. 4. The poorly designed proposal on a prominent site in the village will have a detrimental effect on the setting of the listed buildings on the east side of Main Street. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 7c Historic Assets and Places and LDP2 Policy 27A: Listed Buildings. 5. The loss of trees and habitat to enable the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the natural environment and biodiversity including protected species and lead to the fragmentation of an existing network of green infrastructure. The proposal does not satisfy NPF4 Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis, NPF4 Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, NPF4 Policy 3: Biodiversity, NPF4 Policy 6: Forestry, Woodland and Trees and NPF4 Policy 20: Blue and Green Infrastructure and LDP2 Policy 1: Placemaking, LDP2 Policy 40B: Trees, Woodland and Development, LDP2 Policy 41: Biodiversity and LDP2 Policy 42: Green Infrastructure. Justification The proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan and there are no material reasons which justify departing from the Development Plan. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS DECISION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Page 20
08 09 10
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
No embedded text on this page.
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
No embedded text on this page.
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
No embedded text on this page.
Page 32
No embedded text on this page.
Page 33
No embedded text on this page.
Page 34
No embedded text on this page.
Page 35
No embedded text on this page.
Page 36
No embedded text on this page.
Page 37
No embedded text on this page.
Page 38
No embedded text on this page.
Page 39
No embedded text on this page.
Page 40
No embedded text on this page.
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
No embedded text on this page.
Page 45
No embedded text on this page.
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
No embedded text on this page.
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
No embedded text on this page.
Page 52
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
No embedded text on this page.
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
No embedded text on this page.
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.
Page 57
No embedded text on this page.
Page 58
No embedded text on this page.
Page 59
No embedded text on this page.
Page 60
No embedded text on this page.
Page 61
No embedded text on this page.
Page 62
No embedded text on this page.
Page 63
No embedded text on this page.
Page 64
No embedded text on this page.
Page 65
No embedded text on this page.
Page 66
No embedded text on this page.
Page 67
No embedded text on this page.
Page 68
No embedded text on this page.
Page 69
No embedded text on this page.
Page 70
No embedded text on this page.
Page 71
No embedded text on this page.
Page 72
No embedded text on this page.
Page 73
No embedded text on this page.
Page 74
No embedded text on this page.
Page 75
No embedded text on this page.
Page 76
No embedded text on this page.
Page 77
No embedded text on this page.
Page 78
No embedded text on this page.
Page 79
No embedded text on this page.
Page 80
No embedded text on this page.
Page 81
No embedded text on this page.
Page 82
No embedded text on this page.
Page 83
No embedded text on this page.
Page 84
No embedded text on this page.
Page 85
No embedded text on this page.
Page 86
No embedded text on this page.
Page 87
No embedded text on this page.
Page 88
No embedded text on this page.
Page 89
No embedded text on this page.
Page 90
No embedded text on this page.
Page 91
No embedded text on this page.
Page 92
No embedded text on this page.