CompletePAsubmissionREDACTED
Renfrewshire Council · 30 January 2024
Back to Local Review Body. — 30 January 2024 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
PLANNING AUTHORITY’S SUBMISSION
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
No embedded text on this page.
Page 4
Page 2 of 3 Ref. 23/0179/PP REASON FOR REFUSAL PAPER APART TERMS AND CONDITIONS Reason for Decision 1. The proposal does not fully accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and other material considerations were not considered to carry sufficient weight to justify the grant of planning permission. Conditions/Reasons 1. That the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 7 'Historic Assets and Places', of NPF 4 as the proposed development is likely to lead to the loss of woodland, a natural feature which makes a positive contribution to the character of the historic area 2. That the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9 'Brownfield land, vacant and derelict land, and empty buildings' of NPF 4 as the application site is considered to have high ecological value as it has been naturalised with woodland and the proposal is likely to lead to the loss of trees, which make a positive contribution to the character of the area. 3. That the proposed development is inappropriate and contrary to the provisions of Policy P1 of the adopted Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance Places Development Criteria given the proximity of the trees to the development the trees health and safety cannot be adequately protected. 4. That the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policies ENV2 - Natural Heritage and ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage of the adopted Local Development Plan, the New Development Supplementary Guidance Conservation Areas, Trees, Woodland and Forestry and Natural Heritage and the provisions of Historic Scotland's guidance on 'Setting' and 'New Development in Historic Settings as the trees within the application site make a valuable contribution to the setting of 'Auld Simon' and the Lochwinnoch Conservation Area generally and the proposed development is likely to lead to the loss of part of this woodland which would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Category B listed 'Auld Simon' and the setting of the Conservation Area generally and these trees should be safeguarded. 5. That the proposed development is inappropriate and contrary to the provisions of Renfrewshire's Planning and Development Tree Policy 2022 as there is no overriding justification for the construction of the proposed dwellinghouse in proximity to trees and the development is likely to adversely affect the natural development and health of the trees remaining.
Page 5
Page 3 of 3 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months beginning with the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1PR. 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land's interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Page 6
Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL Application No: 23/0179/PP CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S SERVICE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING APPLICATION Regd: 7 April 2023 Applicant Agent David and Louise Johnston Flat 0/2 174 Clarkson Road Cathcart G44 3DN Marcelo Dominguez CHG Architecture Ltd 54 Braehead Lochwinnoch PA12 4AS Nature of Proposals Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and associated works. Site Site On Eastern Boundary Of No 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch Description This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached one storey dwellinghouse on a wooded site located at the junction of East End and Johnshill within Lochwinnoch Conservation Area. The application site generally slopes downwards from north to south and west to east. There are approximately sixteen mature mixed deciduous trees on the site of varying heights, mostly in good physical condition. There are the remains of a historic stone wall at the site. The proposed dwellinghouse would face onto and would be positioned 1 metre from the boundary with East End and would be positioned centrally within the site. Access would be taken from the north eastern corner of the site, where off street parking for two cars, a turning area and storage for refuse and recycling facilities would be provided. Pedestrian access would be linked to existing footways. The existing railing would be retained on the frontage of the site and a new 1.8-metre-high sandstone wall would be formed set back on either side of the front elevation bounding East End. A further section of this boundary wall would be formed around the north eastern corner of the site. A timber close boarded fence is proposed to the remainder of the boundary. The dwellinghouse would be single storey, have a footprint of approximately 90 square metres, with a traditional style symmetrical frontage and double pitched roof. It would be finished in smooth render with corner quoin blocks and exposed sandstone lintels, jambs, and sills on the front elevation. The front elevation however, would be finished throughout in stone. The roof would be finished in natural slate. The site is bounded to the north by the roadway known as East End and the category B listed St Winnocs Church also known as 'Auld Simon,' to the south and east by an area of ground accommodating several run down wooden lock ups and to the west by a small area of woodland and a dwelling beyond. Tree removal recommended by an arboriculture report accompanying this application has been consented through treeworks application (22/0426/TC) and has been undertaken. The applicant seeks consent to position the proposed dwelling within the centre of the area where the treeworks took place and to retain all the remaining trees within the application site.
Page 7
History Application No: 22/0426/TC Description: Removal of four trees comprising two sycamore and two ash and pruning of six trees to provide clearance from adjacent road Status; No objections Application No: 15/0089/PP Description: Erection of one and a half storey dwellinghouse Status; Refused Application No: 02/0264/PP Description: Erection of one and a half storey dwellinghouse. Status; Refused Policy and Material Considerations Legislation requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the proposal must be assessed against the following: Development Plan National Planning Framework 4 Policy 7 - Historic assets and places Policy 9 - Brownfield land, vacant and derelict land, and empty buildings. Adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan August 2021 Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places Policy ENV2 – Natural Heritage Policy ENV 3 - Built and Cultural Heritage New Development Supplementary Guidance 2019 Delivering the Places Strategy - Places Development Criteria Delivering the Environment Strategy - Conservation areas; Trees, Woodland, and Forestry; Natural Heritage Material considerations Historic Environment Scotland's Policy Statement 2016 and associated Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes on Conservation Areas, Settings, New Development in Historic Settings. Renfrewshire Planning Development Tree Policy 2022 Publicity The Council has undertaken neighbour notification in accordance with the requirements of legislation. A site notice was posted on site on 26 April 2023 for the following reasons: Development within a Conservation Area An Advert was placed in the press on 26 April 2023 for the following reasons;
Page 8
Development within a Conservation Area Objections/Representation There have been 15 representations, 2 of which are in support of the application and 13 which offer objection. The issues raised can be summarised as follows: In support 1. The plans are very much in keeping with the ethos and character of the historic East End of the village, very close to the Auld Simon Church Tower. 2. No objection, provided no trees would be harmed. Objection 1.There has been no material change in circumstances in relation to the application site since the previous refusals in 2002 and 2015, and no reason for any previous decision to be overturned. 2.The woodland area which forms the application site is a valuable asset to the local flora and fauna. Any housing development on the site would negatively affect the wildlife in this secluded and unspoilt corner. 3.The application site is adjacent to ‘Auld Simon’, which is an important historical relic and a local focal point that adds charm and history to the village. Removing this woodland and the development proposed would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of this area and alter the ambiance and landscape around this important site. 4.The removal of the significant trees, known as Lochwinnoch Wood, which add to the character of Auld Simon, will undermine the appearance of Auld Simon, and detract from the beauty of this area which is part of the Semple Trail. 5.The needless removal of this local wild space, being replaced by a new housing development, will detract from the overall setting and aesthetic beauty of ‘Auld Simon’ church ruin and graveyard. 6.The loss of trees would affect the wildlife in the area. Birds and bats are evident in this location. This is part of a wider historical area of trees and important to the network of woodlands in the area for local wildlife. Development of the site would reduce the natural green space within the village. 7.The root system of the existing trees retains water in the surrounding soil for drainage purposes and surrounding properties may be affected by increased runoff with the loss of trees. 8.Development of the site would impact/disturb existing wildlife including crows who roost in the trees every night. 9.Bats which roost in this area use the trees in this wooded site for hunting. 10.The tree survey submitted in support of the application was purchased by the applicant. The independence of this survey is questionable. It is stated that the trees are dead, this is not the
Page 9
case as the trees are in full bloom. 11. It is not certain that sewage/drainage from the site could be accommodated within the existing network. 12.The proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy and obstruction of an existing view of the ancient church yard. 13. The proposal would result in overshadowing of surrounding properties. 14.East End is narrow and the development site very tight. This is the main access road for the dwellings on East End including services and bin lorries. Any traffic exiting East End would approach the application site from an almost blind bend. Local traffic manoeuvres and safety would be compromised. Consultations Chief Executive’s Service (Roads Development) - No objection subject to conditions ensuring construction of appropriate sightlines at the access to the site and provision of an appropriate footway along the site frontage on East End. Communities and Housing (Environmental Protection Team) – no comments to make on the proposals WoSAS – No objection subject to a condition requiring archaeological monitoring and the implementation of a watching brief. Children’s Services - Awaiting a consultation response from Children Services in respect of the impact of the proposed development on the education estate. The impact of the development on school places is therefore unclear at this time. Summary of Main Issues of: Environmental Statement – n/a Appropriate Assessment – n/a Design Statement – n/a Access Statement – n/a Planning Statement - Supporting statement provides the history of the site and a critique of the influences which contributed to the design elements of the proposal. Tree Condition Survey - The report is based on visual inspections and states that the tree stock is unmanaged and consequently some trees are in poor condition and recommend removal of 2 Ash and 2 Sycamore. A number of trees are also recommended for crown reduction as they are overhanging the carriageway. It is acknowledged that trees are mature and over time have been colonised, principally by sycamore trees. Chalara Ash dieback has also colonised the site. The tree removal and crown reduction recommended by the report has been consented through a treeworks application and has been undertaken.
Page 10
Planning Obligation Summary – n/a Scottish Ministers Direction – n/a Assessment National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) provides the long-term national spatial strategy for planning in Scotland. It sets out the Scottish Government's current view on delivering sustainable, liveable, and productive places through the application of spatial principles. Policy 7 ’Historic Assets and Places’ and Policy 9 ’Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings are relevant to the assessment of this application. Policy 7 ‘Historic Assets and Places’ seeks to protect and enhance historic and environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. It considers that development proposals within conservation areas should ensure that existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the conservation area and its setting be preserved or enhanced and that these should be preserved in situ wherever possible. This includes the retention of structures, boundary walls, railings, trees, and hedges. Policy 9 ‘Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings’ seeks to encourage, promote, and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land, and empty buildings. However, in determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. Whilst it is recognised that there are the remains of a historic wall at the site, given how well the site has been naturalised over the years and the positive contribution the quality of this woodland makes to the setting of the ‘Auld Simon’ church, the conservation area, and East End generally the development of the site would not be supported as it is likely to have an adverse impact through the loss of trees. It therefore does not comply with the relevant provisions of NPF4. The application site is identified in the LDP proposals map under Policy P1 ‘Renfrewshire’s Places’. Policy P1 presumes in favour of a continuance of the built form provided that such developments are compatible with and complementary to existing uses and cause no significant harm in line with the criteria of the New Development Supplementary Guidance (SG). The New Development Supplementary Guidance, Places Development Criteria, sets out a number of criteria which new residential development is required to meet. It considers that proposals require to ensure that the layout, built form, design and materials of all new developments will be of high quality; density will require to be in keeping with the density of surrounding areas; surrounding land uses should not have an adverse effect on the proposed residential development; and existing landscape and ecological features should be retained where they make a positive contribution to the character of the area. Policy ENV2 ‘Natural Heritage’ is also relevant to the assessment of the application and seeks to ensure that development proposals will consider the potential impacts on natural heritage and should protect, restore degraded habitats, and minimise any adverse impacts on habitats, species, network connectivity or landscape character, in line with the SG. The New Development Supplementary Guidance considers that natural heritage makes an important contribution to the local character, identity and quality of an area and these assets should be protected with opportunities for enhancement. All developments require to follow the principles of the mitigation hierarchy of Avoid, Reduce and Compensate. It further states that trees, woodlands, and forestry should be maintained and where possible enhanced throughout Renfrewshire.
Page 11
Given the location of the site within Lochwinnoch Conservation Area, Policy ENV 3 also applies. Policy ENV 3 ‘Built and Cultural Heritage’ and the New Development Supplementary Guidance seeks to preserve and enhance the townscape qualities of conservation areas and requires development proposals to demonstrate that they will enhance the visual amenity, individual settings, buildings and open space and historical architectural character of the conservation area. These policies are expanded upon by Historic Scotland’s guidance notes on ‘Settings’ and ‘New Development in Historic Settings.’ It states that planning authorities must take into account the setting of historic assets when determining planning applications and considers that setting includes the way in which the surroundings of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is experienced, understood and appreciated. It considers that setting often extends beyond the immediate property boundary of a historic structure into the broader landscape and incorporates a range of factors including visual envelope, incorporating views to, from and across the asset or place. In this regard it is recognised that relatively small changes in the wider landscape may affect its setting and significantly alter its character. Further to these policies Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy 2022 must be considered. It requires development to meet BS5837:2012 standards and buildings and structures require to be sited to allow adequate space for a tree’s natural development and at the same time reduce future pressure for removal of trees. Buildings and associated infrastructure, including garden ground, should generally be located out with the zone of influence of existing and proposed trees. The zone of influence is generally considered to be the distance from the bottom of a tree that is equal to the mature height of an existing or proposed tree. The default position for structures should be outwith the root protection area of trees to be retained. An incursion into the root protection area will only be considered where there is an acceptable overriding justification for construction within the root protection area and where adequate technical information is submitted to support the technical solution proposed and that the technical solution will prevent damage to the tree. For an overriding justification to be accepted the proposal must be considered to deliver social, economic or environmental benefits that benefit the wider community. Assessing the proposal against these requirements the following conclusions can be made. The existing mature woodland which covers the application site is a natural ecological feature which makes a positive contribution to the area, both visually and environmentally contributing to the natural environment, local biodiversity, and habitats. Although the site is not subject of an environmental designation, it is of importance locally and contributes greatly to the setting of the ‘Auld Simon’ church and the setting of the conservation area of Lochwinnoch generally. The site is occupied by a variety of mature trees which contribute to the wooded character of the rising ground to the east end of High Street and the setting of ‘Auld Simon.’ It is acknowledged that four mature trees have recently been removed from the site due to condition and disease, however this does not significantly change the visual or ecological contribution that this site makes to the area. It is considered that the site in its current form with the recent tree removal forms an important part of the character of the conservation area and that of the setting of Auld Simon and that it would be difficult to develop the site in a way which would not have an adverse impact on the amenity, ecology or long term health of the remaining woodland such that it would make an appropriate housing site. In this regard, the site is small extending to approximately 0.06 hectares, is of awkward shape and remains wooded. The dwelling proposed would be located centrally within the site in an area where four diseased trees have been removed but where other mature trees remain.
Page 12
Approximately eight mature Sycamore, Lime, and Common Beech trees in fair to good condition of heights between 18 to 21 metres, and crown spreads mostly over 4 metres remain in close proximity to the development and as such are likely to be seriously compromised. A structural report has been provided advising that the foundations for the development can be formed in a manner that protects tree root systems. However, given the proximity of these trees to the proposed dwelling, the development of the site is extremely challenging and the long term health of the trees likely to be adversely affected. Plans provided also do not show the ground level differences through the site. In terms of the Council’s Tree Policy no overriding justification has been provided for this development to be constructed in such proximity and inadequate space has been provided to allow for the natural development of the existing trees without impinging on the proposed dwelling. It is also considered that the size of the trees and their closeness to the proposed dwelling could potentially adversely affect light for any occupants and apply pressure for the further removal of trees. The dwellinghouse proposed would extend to approximately 90 square metres and an access and off-street parking area for two cars with turning area would be provided in the southeast corner of the site. Roads Development have offered no objection to the proposal provided that an adequate access to the site is created. Whilst it is noted that the site layout would therefore meet Roads requirements it is considered that this layout would impact further on amenity space as the remaining ground available as garden space would be largely wooded. In terms of design and facing materials the dwellinghouse is of a vernacular style, albeit deeper than traditional dwellings it is referencing. However, it has good quality finishes including stone, wooden windows, and a slated roof which is appropriate for the area. The matters raised by objectors have, in the main, been dealt with above. In relation to other matters raised I would comment as follows. The tree survey submitted in support of the application has been produced and certified by a qualified tree surgeon and is accepted as a fair assessment of the trees on site. Roads Development have offered no objection to the proposal for reasons of traffic safety. Unacceptable overlooking of adjacent properties to the rear should not occur given the separation distance involved nor should overshadowing. On balance therefore, taking account of the visual and ecological merits of the site, its sensitive and prominent location within the conservation area and the existing contribution the site makes to the setting of both ‘Auld Simon’ and Lochwinnoch Conservation Area, it is considered that this proposal would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the woodland within the site , and therefore the setting and character of ‘Auld Simon’, East End, and Lochwinnoch Conservation Area. It is therefore considered that the proposal is unacceptable having regard to NPF4, the adopted Local Development Plan policies, New Development Supplementary Guidance, Historic Scotland's guidance on 'Setting' and 'New Development in Historic Settings and Renfrewshire Planning Development Tree Policy 2022. Index of Photographs A site visit was undertaken for this application on 6th July 2023 and photographs were taken. RECOMMENDATION Refuse
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
Page 1 of 8 Renfrewshire House Cotton Street Paisley PA1 1JD Tel: 0300 3000 144 Email: dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100624376-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Type of Application What is this application for? Please select one of the following: * Application for planning permission (including changes of use and surface mineral working). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application, (including renewal of planning permission, modification, variation or removal of a planning condition etc) Application for Approval of Matters specified in conditions. Description of Proposal Please describe the proposal including any change of use: * (Max 500 characters) Is this a temporary permission? * Yes No If a change of use is to be included in the proposal has it already taken place? Yes No (Answer ‘No’ if there is no change of use.) * Has the work already been started and/or completed? * No Yes – Started Yes - Completed Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Single storey, stone cottage set over existing ruins, within a wooded site intending to recreate the historical streetscape and ensure the long term visual and ecological continuity of the site across the road from B listed Auld Simon. The narrow wooded site to the west will remain intact with low iron fence onto East End boundary. New trees of the same species will be planted and maintained to ensure the long term visual and ecological continuity of the site.
Page 16
Page 2 of 8 Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * CHG Architecture Ltd Mr Marcelo David Dominguez Johnston Braehead East End 54 0 PA12 4AS PA12 4EP United Kingdom Scotland Lochwinnoch Lochwinnoch
Page 17
Page 3 of 8 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Pre-Application Discussion Details Cont. In what format was the feedback given? * Meeting Telephone Letter Email Please provide a description of the feedback you were given and the name of the officer who provided this feedback. If a processing agreement [note 1] is currently in place or if you are currently discussing a processing agreement with the planning authority, please provide details of this. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently.) * (max 500 characters) Title: Other title: First Name: Last Name: Correspondence Reference Date (dd/mm/yyyy): Number: Note 1. A Processing agreement involves setting out the key stages involved in determining a planning application, identifying what information is required and from whom and setting timescales for the delivery of various stages of the process. Due to a major change on the site conditions following previous objections in 2015, we met planning officer James Weir on site. After his email of 13.03.23, we came to the conclusion that a fresh application with a new approach could be considered favorably. Mr Renfrewshire Council James Email from James Weir Weir 13/03/2023 Wooded site across the road from Auld Simon 659086 235594
Page 18
Page 4 of 8 Site Area Please state the site area: Please state the measurement type used: Hectares (ha) Square Metres (sq.m) Existing Use Please describe the current or most recent use: * (Max 500 characters) Access and Parking Are you proposing a new altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If Yes please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. Are you proposing any change to public paths, public rights of way or affecting any public right of access? * Yes No If Yes please show on your drawings the position of any affected areas highlighting the changes you propose to make, including arrangements for continuing or alternative public access. How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) currently exist on the application Site? How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) do you propose on the site (i.e. the Total of existing and any new spaces or a reduced number of spaces)? * Please show on your drawings the position of existing and proposed parking spaces and identify if these are for the use of particular types of vehicles (e.g. parking for disabled people, coaches, HGV vehicles, cycles spaces). Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No Are you proposing to connect to the public drainage network (eg. to an existing sewer)? * Yes – connecting to public drainage network No – proposing to make private drainage arrangements Not Applicable – only arrangements for water supply required Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. 560.00 Woodlands with remains of dilapidated stone dwelling. 0 2
Page 19
Page 5 of 8 Are you proposing to connect to the public water supply network? * Yes No, using a private water supply No connection required If No, using a private water supply, please show on plans the supply and all works needed to provide it (on or off site). Assessment of Flood Risk Is the site within an area of known risk of flooding? * Yes No Don’t Know If the site is within an area of known risk of flooding you may need to submit a Flood Risk Assessment before your application can be determined. You may wish to contact your Planning Authority or SEPA for advice on what information may be required. Do you think your proposal may increase the flood risk elsewhere? * Yes No Don’t Know Trees Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? * Yes No If Yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled. Waste Storage and Collection Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste (including recycling)? * Yes No If Yes or No, please provide further details: * (Max 500 characters) Residential Units Including Conversion Does your proposal include new or additional houses and/or flats? * Yes No How many units do you propose in total? * Please provide full details of the number and types of units on the plans. Additional information may be provided in a supporting statement. All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace Does your proposal alter or create non-residential floorspace? * Yes No Schedule 3 Development Does the proposal involve a form of development listed in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Yes No Don’t Know Planning (Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 * If yes, your proposal will additionally have to be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area of the development. Your planning authority will do this on your behalf but will charge you a fee. Please check the planning authority’s website for advice on the additional fee and add this to your planning fee. If you are unsure whether your proposal involves a form of development listed in Schedule 3, please check the Help Text and Guidance notes before contacting your planning authority. Bin store area noted in drawing number 2301A-01 and 2301A-02 1
Page 20
Page 6 of 8 Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * Certificates and Notices CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013 One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E. Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate A Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate A I hereby certify that – (1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application. (2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding Signed: Marcelo Dominguez On behalf of: Mr David Johnston Date: 06/04/2023 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. *
Page 21
Page 7 of 8 Checklist – Application for Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters)
Page 22
Page 8 of 8 Provide copies of the following documents if applicable: A copy of an Environmental Statement. * Yes N/A A Design Statement or Design and Access Statement. * Yes N/A A Flood Risk Assessment. * Yes N/A A Drainage Impact Assessment (including proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems). * Yes N/A Drainage/SUDS layout. * Yes N/A A Transport Assessment or Travel Plan Yes N/A Contaminated Land Assessment. * Yes N/A Habitat Survey. * Yes N/A A Processing Agreement. * Yes N/A Other Statements (please specify). (Max 500 characters) Declare – For Application to Planning Authority I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application to the planning authority as described in this form. The accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information are provided as a part of this application. Declaration Name: Mr Marcelo Dominguez Declaration Date: 06/04/2023 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 06/04/2023 14:57
Page 23
Tree Condition Survey Land adjacent to the Old Simon Kirk, Johnshill East end, Lochwinnoch 14th June 2022 Prepared for Mr & Mrs Johnston Prepared by C. A. Calvey, P.T.I., Tech.Cert (Arbor.A), Cert.Arb (RFS), BA Hons. Principal Arboricultural Consultant Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd
Page 24
CONTENTS Introduction & Survey Findings Summary Page 1 Map: Site Plan (Scale 1: 250) Page 2 Photographs Page 3 Tree Schedule Pages 4 - 6 Tree Survey Assessment criteria Pages 7 - 8 Report Limitations Pages 9 - 10 Appendix 1: Project Contact Details Page 11 Appendix 2: Planning Designations Page 12 Appendix 3: References Page 13
Page 25
Page 1 Introduction The arboricultural survey was conducted in May 2022 for a small area of land at East end, Lochwinnoch adjacent to the Old Simon Kirk, Johnshill (PA12 4ES). Trees were assessed in accordance with BS 3998:2010 “Tree work Recommendations”. Christopher Calvey is an independent arboriculturist and the report presents an impartial assessment of the tree stock. The report is based on visual inspections. Please refer to Report Limitations on pages 9 -10. The authority of this report ceases within one year from the date of the survey or following severe weather occurrences which supersede the current validity of the report. Survey Findings The survey area is a former residential garden originally containing several mature trees and over time has been colonised, principally by sycamore trees. The mature trees and ground cover are heavily cloaked with ivy and roadside trees are substantially overhanging the carriageway. The tree stock is unmanaged and consequently some trees are in a poor condition and recommended for removal. Chalara Ash dieback has also colonised the site. Planning Considerations Trees are within the Lochwinnoch Conservation Area and out with the Lochwinnoch Tree Preservation Order. Please refer to the Designations Map Appendix 2, page 12. https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html Council Advisory Notice Ref: GS18052022. Renfrewshire Council has issued a notice under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 that overhanging trees are to be cut back to a minimum of 5.5m above the road and at least 1m from the edge of the carriageway. The report is in accordance with the Council Notice and recommends further tree safety work. Recommendations 1. Crown reduction to trees overhanging carriageway; 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, and 877. 2. 4 trees are recommended for removal on the basis of poor condition (867, 869, 871 & 876) and should be removed within 2 months.
Page 26
Page 2 Tre works Plan
Page 27
Page 3 View from tree 862 towards East End Road 876 with basal decay for removal Tree view south from East end road Tree view west Ash 867 for removal Tree 870 Tree view south west from East end road Tree view east- trees overhanging road
Page 28
Page 4
Page 29
Page 5
Page 30
Page 6
Page 31
Page 7 Tree Survey Assessment Criteria The tree survey is undertaken in accordance with a range of criteria listed in BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations. Quality Category Category A: (HIGH quality, trees with particular merit with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years). Category B: (MODERATE quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years). Category C: (LOW quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years). Category U: (UNSUITABLE quality, in such condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use. Life expectancy less than 10 years). Sub Categories: The BS 5837 subcategories: 1 - mainly Arboricultural Qualities, 2 - mainly landscape qualities, 3 - Cultural qualities. Tree Condition Defects or diseases and relevant observations have been recorded under condition of Crown, Stem, Basal area and Physiological condition. It is important to appreciate that in BS5837 criteria only basic condition categories are recorded and the inspection process does not constitute a tree safety survey. The overall condition of a tree has been referred to as one of the following: • Good: A sound tree needing little if any attention at the time of survey. • Fair: A tree with minor but rectifiable defects or in the early stages of stress, from which it may recover. The tree may have structural weaknesses which might result in failure. • Poor: A tree with clear and obvious major structural and or physiological defects or stressed such that it would be expensive to retain and necessarily requires to be inspected on a regular basis for safety purposes. • Decline: Irreversible with death inevitable in the short term. • Dead. To be removed unless stated to the contrary. Age Class Age Class and Life Expectancy are clearly related but the distinction is necessary due to the variation among tree species. Knowledge of the longevity of individual species has been applied to determine the relative age and life expectancy categories in which trees are placed. Age class is classified as: • Y: Young trees up to 15 years of age. • SM: Semi-mature trees less than 1/3rd life expectancy. • EM: Early Mature trees between 1/3rd and ½ of life expectancy. • M: Mature trees between ½ and 2/3rd of life expectancy. • LM: Late mature - A senescent or moribund specimen with a limited safe useful life expectancy. • V: Veteran status – a tree of significant age and character such that even in poor condition the tree has a value for retention for arboricultural or ecological reasons.
Page 32
Page 8 Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) The survey schedule identifies a Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE) for each tree. This is a subjective assessment of the number of years that the tree can be expected to survive without deteriorating to the extent that safety is compromised. The estimated remaining contribution is given in ranges of years (<10, 10 to 20, 20 to 40, >40). It is important to note that SULE does not in any way suggest that regular inspection and remedial work can be ignored. SULE does not take into account routine management that will be required to deal with minor structural or cultural problems, or damage that may arise from climatic or other physical intervention. The SULE value given for each tree reflects the following opinion based on current tree condition and environmental considerations: <10 years. The tree has very limited prospects, due to terminal decline or major structural problems. Its removal should be planned within the next 10 years, unless immediate removal is recommended for safety reasons. 10-20 years. The tree has obvious structural or physiological problems that cannot be rectified, and decline is likely to continue. Removal or major tree surgery work may be necessary, or the species is approaching its normal life expectancy and decline due to senescence can be expected within this timeframe. 20-40 years. Relatively minor defects may exist that are likely to increase safety risks or general tree health over a longer period of time. At this stage it is not possible to fully predict the impact of such defects. Or the species is approaching its normal life expectancy and due to senescence decline can be expected within this timeframe. >40. There is currently no health or structural problems evident, and the tree can be expected to survive safely for 40 or more years.
Page 33
Page 9 Report limitations 1. The survey is only concerned with the arboriculture aspects of the site. 2. The report is based on visual inspections conducted from ground level with the purpose of categorising trees in relation to design, demolition and construction and does not provide reliable data on tree safety. This report is not, nor should it be taken to be, a full or thorough assessment of the health and safety of trees on or adjacent to the site, and therefore it is recommended that detailed tree inspections of retained trees are undertaken on a regular basis with the express purpose of complying with the land owner’s duty of care and satisfying health and safety requirements. 3. The statements made in this report do not take account of the effects of extremes of climate, vandalism or accident, whether physical, chemical or fire. 4. The authority of this report ceases within one year from the date of the survey or when any site conditions change, soil levels are altered near trees, tree work undertaken, or following severe weather occurrences which supersede the current validity of the report. 5. The validity, accuracy and findings of this report will be directly related to the accuracy of the information made available prior to and during the inspection process. No checking of independent third party data will be undertaken. 6. Any observations that are made in regard to the condition of built structures and hydrology are from a laypersons view. The legal property on which the trees stand is not assessed. 7. The report contains Visual Tree Inspections undertaken from ground level. Visual inspections relate only to those parts of the tree which are visible. Roots are not inspected and during summer when trees are in leaf parts of the canopy may not be visible. Where a tree or parts of a tree could not be inspected due to epicormic growth, ivy or restricted access, liability is not accepted. Only the visible pathogens are recorded; this does not confirm the absence of other pathogens but that no fungal fruiting bodies, or other signs, were visible at the time of the survey. Ayrshire Tree Surgeons cannot accept any liability in connection with the following: I. A tree which has not been subject to a full and thorough inspection. II. For any part of a tree that is not visible from the ground near the tree. III. Where excavations have taken place within the rooting area of a tree. IV. Branch or limb failure resulting from conditions associated with Summer Branch Drop. V. The effect of extreme weather events, climate, vandalism or accident, whether physical, chemical or fire.
Page 34
Page 10 VI. Where tree surgery work is not carried out in accordance with current good practice 8. Felling licenses are the responsibility of the tree owner. The Forestry Commission controls tree felling by issuing felling licences. In any calendar quarter, you may fell up to 5 cubic metres without a licence as long as no more than two cubic metres are sold. Timber volumes are not assessed. 9. Planning restrictions applying to tree works remain the responsibility of the tree owners. 10. No failsafe guarantees can be given regarding tree safety because the lightweight construction principles of nature dictate a natural failure rate of intact trees. Trees are living organisms and can decline in health rapidly due to biotic and abiotic influences. Therefore failure of intact trees can never be ruled out due to the laws and forces of nature. 11. This report has been prepared exclusively by the Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd for the ‘Client’ and no responsibility can be accepted for actions taken by any third party arising from their interpretation of the information contained in this document. No other party may rely on the report and if they do, then they rely upon it at their own risk. Christopher Calvey - Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd
Page 35
Page 11 Appendix 1: Project Contact Details David & Louise Johnston East end, Lochwinnoch Land adjacent to the Old Simon, Johnshill. Renfrewshire council planning Development Management Section, Chief Executive's Service, Fourth Floor, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB. email at dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk phone on 0300 300 0144 Project Arboriculturist Christopher Calvey, Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd North Hourat Farm, Kilbirnie, Ayrshire KA25 7LJ
Page 36
Page 12 Appendix 2: Planning Designations (Site in Red)
Page 37
Page 13 Appendix 3: References British Standards Institute. (2012). Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations BS5837:2012BSI, London. British Standards Institute. (2010). Recommendations for Tree Work BS 3998:2010 BSI, London. Tree Preservation Orders, A Guide to the Law and Good Practice (2005). Department for Communities and Local Government Lonsdale D. (1999). Research for Amenity Trees No 7: Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, HMSO, London. Mattheck & Breloer H. (1994). Research for Amenity Trees No.4: The Body Language of Trees, HMSO, London. NHBC Standards (2007) Chapter 4.2 ‘Building Near Trees’. National House-Building Council. NJUG 4 Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees. Issued 16 November 2007. STROUTS R.G. & WINTER T.G. (1984), Diagnosis of ill health in trees, HMSO Publications, London SHIGO A.L. (1991), Modern Arboriculture, Shigo and Trees Associates Hazards from Trees – A General Guide ISBN 0-85538-514-6 Tree Felling – Getting Permission. Forestry Commission and free to download from their website www.forestry.gov.uk Trees and the Law ISBN 0-900978-15-5 Published by the Arboricultural Association Tel: 01794 68717 Institute of Chartered Foresters Tel: 0121 225 2705
Page 38
PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT PROPOSED ERECTION OF DWELLING HOUSE. East End, Lochwinnoch, Renfrewshire. 1. SUMMARY 1.1 This supporting Planning, Design and Access Statement has been prepared on behalf of the client (Mr & Mrs Johnston). It accompanies the planning application for the proposed erection of a single storey dwelling house at East End, Lochwinnoch for use as a family home. 1.2 The applicant lives locally to the application site and as such is fully aware of the aesthetics of the area in around the Auld Simon, hopefully this application conveys the intent to visually maintain and enhance this part of the Village. 1.3 In preparation of this current application and taking cognisance of the previous application No.15/0089/PP refusal, a summary of the new design criteria and the reason to re- apply for planning permission are as follows: • Change in site conditions due to Council Advisory Notice GS18052022 • Removal of sick trees following an independent Arboricultural Report triggered by Council Advisory Notice. Permission granted with application 22/0426/TC • Change in design criteria to reduce the cottage in volume making it single storey, under 100 square meters reducing the impact on the site. • Relocate it to sit in the space created by the felled trees and follow the line of historic existing buildings to recreate the original streetscape and enhance the ambiance and landscape around this important site. • Cottage materials and design to mirror The Auld Simon boundary walls and building ruins across the road. • Commission ATK Structural Engineers to produce an Appraisal on Foundation Options to minimise impact on the remaining trees. 2. EXISTING SITE AND SURROUDING AREA 2.1 The application site is situated within Lochwinnoch. The site is located adjacent to Auld Simon on the east side of East End Road at the junction between East End and Johnshill. 2.2 The application site is also within a designated conservation area of Lochwinnoch, running from East End to Knapdale. 2.3 Site has been cleared following council’s Advisory Notice Ref: GS18052022 and Independent Arboricultural report aached. Please refer to application 22/0426/TC for proof of permission to remove the trees. 2.4 Properties bordering site: four number timber lock-up garages to the rear (southeast of the site), some dilapidated and poorly maintained. Access to lockups (un-surfaced soft ground generally overgrown) located on the northeast side. Garden ground of flats at No.2 Johnshill to the southwest. The proposed cottage will be orientated due south to avoid overlooking any neighbouring properties. 2.5 The site is fully fenced off, post and wire to the majority of the site, and a railing to approximately 50% of the frontage (bounding East End Road adjacent to the Johnshill). The remaining of a stone wall, belonging to the original buildings on the site is visible along East End. Please refer to historical maps attached and pictures bellow.
Page 39
3 DEVELOPMENT USE 3.1 The site is currently un-used fenced off land with mature trees and felled trees following council’s Advisory Notice. The ground is fully accessible and cleared. 3.2 The proposal is for the erection of a single storey dwelling house. For use as a family home comprising of lounge, kitchen diner, hall, bathroom and two bedrooms. Approximate floor area of 90sqm. 4 AREAS 4.1 The site (indicated by red line on accompanying plans) is fully owned by the applicant, approximately 560sqm, (0.056ha) in area. 4.2 Proposed development area is 440sqm (comprising of dwelling house, drive way and garden ground) of which the dwelling house footprint of 90sqm (approximately 20% of development area). The remaining land to the west will be maintained by the applicant to ensure the future life of the woodland and protect the character and wildlife of the site. 5 LAYOUT AND ACCESS 5.1 Proposed development comprises of a single storey traditional local vernacular cottage, style to be sympathetic to conservation area, based on the ruins across the road. See picture below. 5.2 It is positioned 1m off the boundary, parallel to East End in line with existing remains of historical buildings. Building will be positioned equidistant between remaining trees (866/874 Sycamore and 868/877 Beech) 5.3 The intension is to re-create the historical streetscape view from Johnshill, with The Auld Simon stone wall and ruins to the left and the low profile, stone, local vernacular cottage to the right. Refer to 3D Visual below and drawing 2301A-08. 5.4 Off street parking for a minimum of two cars with turning area will be provided on the southeast corner of the site, delineated with stone walls along East End and a timber fence to the rear. Access from parking area to rear garden, via a gate with adequate storage for refuse and recycling bins will be provided. 5.5 Pedestrian access/egress onto available footpath and Independent accessible pedestrian ramped access to the side entrance will be provided. 6 LANDSCAPING AND EXTERNAL FINISHES 6.1 To retain the original aesthetics of the area and the tree line running from The Auld Simon grounds, through the proposed development site NO trees will be felled and a designated area of the site to the west (approximately 25% of the overall site) with a number of existing mature trees (tag Nos. 864 to 862 as referred to in the arboreal report) will be maintained by the applicant and similar native species will be planted to enhance and ensure the future of the wooded site, attract wildlife and ensure the site retains the charm and history of this part of the village. 6.3 Boundary / perimeter fencing. The existing railing will be maintained and repaired to the designated area, west frontage. A new sandstone wall bounding East End Road (to the frontage of the house to a height of approx. 1.8 metre to form the new frontage of development. Stone work type will match the Auld Simon’s. Timber close boarded fencing will form the remaining garden boundary to the south. Existing post and wire fence to be retained in other areas. 6.4 Garden ground to development (refer to accompanying plans) shows areas of soft landscaping and hard standing areas for vehicle access and paths/patio areas. Hard standing areas to be constructed using porous materials (to reduce surface water run-off) with a heritage style to enhance the period style of the proposed house particularly to the front. 6.5 An independent arboreal report accompanies this application. 6.6 SNH will be consulted to assess the requirement for a bat survey.
Page 40
7 DESIGN / FINISHES 7.1 Proposed single storey dwelling house, Scottish vernacular style cottage, with a 35 degree roof pitch and conservation style roof lights. No projecting eves or verges, finished on a traditional manner. Main front elevation features a sandstone finish with corner quoin blocks and exposed sandstone lintels, jambs, and sills. 7.2 Main building back and side elevations will be finished with painted render. With smooth render course to all elevations below finished floor level. The rear elevation will be painted render and a glass gable into the sitting room facing south. A single storey utility/entrance porch to the southeast gable is to be white rendered with slate pitched roof. 7.3 Roof covered with slate at a pitch of 35 degrees with traditional cloaked verge. All rainwater goods will be of a high standard black cast iron effect uPVC half round conservation area range. 7.4 Windows will be vertically proportioned, sash and case style. All windows to be painted timber, Conservation style roof lights with central vertical bar to front and rear of main roof elevations. 8 CONCLUSSIONS 8.1 In preparation of this application the following considerations were made: • Proposed positioning and orientation of dwelling in line with historical building within the site. Located 1m off the boundary, parallel to East End. The intension is to recreate the historical street scape, looking from Johnshill, with the Auld Simon stone wall and derelict cottage remains on the left and a low profile stone wall and cottage on the right to reinstate the historical build pattern. • Style of dwelling single storey, 90m2 footprint, small symmetrical frontage with traditional, local vernacular style finishes and materials, to match the original building on the site and derelict cottage directly across the road. • Building will be set equidistant between remaining trees (866/874 Sycamore and 868/877 Beech) • No trees on the site will be touched to retain the character of the Lochwinnoch wood and The Auld Simon. • A structural engineer’s Appraisal on Foundation Options was produced by ATK Partnership, to minimise disruption to tree roots. Protection and maintenance of existing trees will be a priority. • Retention of a designated planting area of mature trees to the west, adjacent to the Johnshill (approximately 25% of site). The narrow wooded site to the west is to remain intact with low iron fence onto East End boundary. New trees of the same species will be planted and maintained to ensure the long term visual and ecological continuity of the site. • Exposed sandstone is proposed for the front elevations and sandstone boundary wall approx. 8m in length either side of the cottage on East End edge. • The roof will be 35 degree pitch, slate, with a zinc ridge, no projecting eves or verges overhung in line with the vernacular of local cottages of similar age to the Auld Simon in the village. See pictures bellow. • Rooflights will be conservation area type. • All rainwater goods will be of a high standard conservation area range. • Windows will be vertically proportioned, sash and case style.
Page 41
9 APPENDICES 9.1 Existing site photographs. 9.2 3D graphics of existing site and proposed development. 9.3 Photograph’s of a similar style local vernacular cottage in the village. 9.4 Arboreal report. 9.5 Structural Engineer Report SITE AS EXISTING FELLED DISEASED TREES
Page 42
PROPOSED VIEW FROM JOHNSHILL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Page 43
GOLF COURSE COTTAGE MAIN STREET COTTAGE
Page 44
EXISTING SITE FROM RUINS ACROSS THE ROAD RUINS ACROSS THE ROAD
Page 45
Historic Maps Showing Buildings on the Site
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
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 24 Apr 2023 04:38:53 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk Subject: FW: 23/0179/PP Attachments: From: BS Regservices <bsregservices@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 24 April 2023 15:43 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: 23/0179/PP Having reviewed the above application, Public Protection have no comments to make on the proposals. If you require any further information on this reply please contact Calum Keenan Environmental Health Officer on 07432 100 533
Page 58
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 26 Apr 2023 11:59:39 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: consultation reply 23/0179/PP (OFFICIAL) Attachments: From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 25 April 2023 08:49 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Clare Murray <clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: consultation reply 23/0179/PP (OFFICIAL) From: O'Hare, Martin (NRS) Sent: 25 April 2023 08:40 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Planning Application 23/0179/PP (OFFICIAL) OFFICIAL Dear Sir or Madam, I refer to the above application for the erection of a single-storey house and associated works on a plot of ground on the eastern boundary of 2 Johnshill, Lochwinnoch, which appeared on the most recent weekly list of applications registered with the Council. I have downloaded details of the proposal from the Council’s online planning system, and having compared these against information contained in the Historic Environment Record, with available cartographic sources, and with previous planning casework, I would like to make the following comments. According to our casework log, we provided comments in 2015 in response to a previous application for the erection of a 1.5 storey house on this site (planning reference 15/0089/PP). Although the design of the house proposed 15/0089/PP is different to the current application, as its position within the plot, both would affect the same area of ground, and would as a result raise comparable archaeological issues. I would therefore reiterate the comments made in response to the 2015 application; these were as follows: The proposed new dwelling would be located within an Archaeological Consultation Trigger (ACT), which in this instance defined in relation to the area of increased archaeological sensitivity associated with the historic core of Lochwinnoch. Little is known about the history of Lochwinnoch before its later development in the 18th/19th century, but it is recorded that the church at Lochwinnoch was a chaplaincy under Paisley Abbey from around 1207 until the Reformation, when it became a parish church. Although the date at which this church was originally founded is not known, the curving shape of the burial ground associated with it is characteristic of early Christian sites, and it has been suggested that the dedication may be to a saint (Winnoc) who dies around 715, again indicating a possible early date. It is likely that a small civil settlement or kirkton would have developed in the vicinity of a church during the medieval period, and this would most likely have been located close to the church and burial ground. The area proposed for development under the current application is located immediately opposite the entrance to the churchyard, and it is therefore possible that ground disturbance associated with construction of the new house and its associated landscaping may disturb archaeological remains associated with early settlement in the area. This interpretation can be supported through comparison with Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15.0&lat=55.80166&lon=- 4.62533&layers=4&b=1), which was conducted in the period 1747-55. The church is easily identifiable on the Roy map, as is the junction between the High Street, Johnshill and Eastend. Roy clearly shows the presence of structures on the southern side of the junction between High Street and Eastend, indicating that the area affected by the current application was developed prior to the mid 18th century. When we commented on the 2015 application, it was noted that numerous mature trees were present in the area that would be affected by construction of the proposed new house. The statement provided in support of the current application indicates that a number of these trees have been removed in the intervening period, but while tree roots are likely to have resulted in some
Page 59
disruption to any buried archaeological deposits that may be present within the plot, they are unlikely to have entirely removed this material. The plans supplied by the applicant indicate a significant proportion of the ground within the plot would be disturbed should the development go ahead, as the house would be associated with new areas of parking and hard landscaping. The new house would also be position directly on the street frontage, which would be the section of the site with the greatest potential to produce sub-surface archaeological material relating to earlier phases of occupation. As a result, it is likely that any archaeological deposits that may be present relating to the early development of the village would be wholly removed. Government policy on the treatment of archaeological material under the planning process is that planning authorities should ensure that prospective developers arrange for any archaeological issues raised by their proposals to be adequately addressed. Given the relatively limited scale of the proposal as a whole, I do not consider that it would be necessary to require archaeological intervention in advance of the development. I would therefore recommend the attachment of the following condition to any consent the Council may be minded to grant, which would allow for an appropriate programme of archaeological work to be tied into any development works: this is the same condition as was recommended in our response to application 15/0089/PP. “The developer shall secure the implementation of an archaeological watching brief, to be carried out by an archaeological organisation acceptable to the Planning Authority during all ground disturbance. The retained archaeological organisation shall be afforded access at all reasonable times and allowed to record, recover and report items of interest and finds. A method statement for the watching brief will be submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the watching brief. The name of the archaeological organisation retained by the developer shall be given to the Planning Authority and to the West of Scotland Archaeology Service in writing not less than 14 days before development commences.” The attachment of this condition to planning consent would allow for archaeological monitoring of any and all groundbreaking work associated with the proposed development. It would require that a suitably qualified and experienced archaeologist be present to identify, record, and recover any significant archaeological remains exposed during the development works, and would ensure that these were reported to an acceptable standard. It would be implemented by means of the developer appointing an appropriately-qualified professional archaeological contractor to monitor the initial phase of ground preparation work associated with the proposal. This watching brief would need to be maintained on the initial stages of all proposed ground disturbance (i.e., the removal of turf and topsoil from those areas of the plot that would be disturbed by construction activity, including the footprints of the new houses, the parking area and areas of landscaping to the east and south of the house, and any new service connections). Depending on the results of this initial phase of monitoring, it may then be necessary for the archaeological contractor to watch subsequent deeper excavations for foundations and such like. If any sensitive archaeological remains or features were encountered during initial or subsequent ground excavation works associated with the development, they could be adequately excavated and recorded by the archaeologist retained by the developer, before their destruction. This would include any post excavation analyses and publication, if required. Regards, Martin O'Hare Martin O'Hare
Page 60
Historic Environment Records Officer West of Scotland Archaeology Service 231 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1RX Tel: 0141 287 8333 email: Martin.O'Hare@wosas.glasgow.gov.uk OFFICIAL Proud host of 2023 UCI Cycling World Championships 3-13 August 2023 Please print responsibly and, if you do, recycle appropriately. Disclaimer: This email is from Glasgow City Council or one of its Arm’s Length Organisations (ALEOs). Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of the council, or ALEO, who will not necessarily be bound by its contents. If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. Please be aware that communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. We therefore strongly advise you not to email any information which, if disclosed to someone else, would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature then please write to us using the postal system. If you choose to email this information to us there can be no guarantee of privacy. Any email, including its content, may be monitored and used by the council, or ALEO, for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software is also used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to make sure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law. Glasgow City Council, or ALEOs, cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks. Protective Marking We are using protective marking software to mark all our electronic and paper information based on its content, and the level of security it needs when being shared, handled and stored. You should be aware of what these marks mean for you when information is shared with you: 1.OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (plus one of four sub categories: Personal Data, Commercial, Operational, Senior Management) - this is information regarding the business of the council or of an individual which is considered to be sensitive. In some instances an email of this category may be marked as PRIVATE 2.OFFICIAL - this is information relating to the business of the council and is considered not to be particularly sensitive 3.NOT OFFICIAL – this is not information about the business of the council. For more information about the Glasgow City Council Protective Marking Policy please visit https://glasgow.gov.uk/protectivemarking For further information and to view the council’s Privacy Statement(s), please click on link below:www.glasgow.gov.uk/privacy
Page 61
Director of Communities, Housing & Planning Services: Chief Executive's Service Renfrewshire House Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1AN www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Environment and Communities Our Ref: 32/04 Roads Development Team Observations on Planning Application Planning Contact Clare Murray Email: clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk Roads Contact John Everett Planning Application No: 23/0179/PP Dated 20 April 2023 Received * Applicant Mr David Johnston Proposed Development Erection of single storey dwellinghouses and associated works. Location Site On Eastern Boundary Of No 2 Johnshill East End Lochwinnoch Type of Consent Planning Permission-Full RECOMMENDATION - NO OBJECTIONS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Proposals Acceptable Y or N Proposals Acceptable Y or N Proposals Acceptable Y or N 1. General 3. New Roads 4. Servicing & Car Parking Provision & links for:- Pedestrian * (a) Widths * (a) Servicing Arrangements * Cyclists * (b) Pedestrian Provision * (b) Parking Provision * Public transport * (c) Layout (Horizontal/Vertical Alignment * (c) Layout of Parking Bays/ * garages Loading * (d) Drainage Parking * (d) Turning facilities (Circles/ Hammerheads * (e) Junction Details (Locations/ Radii/sightlines) * (a) General impact of * development (f) Provision for P.U. Services * 5. Signing (b) Safety Audit Required * (g) SUDS * (a) Location * (c) Traffic Impact Analysis * (h) other (b) Illumination * 2. Existing Roads (a) Pedestrian Provision * (b) Type of Connection (Road * Junc/Footway Crossing) (c) Locations(s) of Connection(s) * * (d) Sightlines * Comments The councils published standard requires a 2m wide footway fronting a development site like this one as well as providing connectivity from Johnshill towards the national cycle route via Skippers Lane (on google maps) and to Gates Road. The footway should also provide pedestrian refuge along East End, where there is none or it is presently sub-standard. It is recognised though that many neighbouring footways vary from this standard. Whilst a divergence could be as low as 1.2m in this case because a high stone wall is proposed the minimum would be 1.5m to allow two adults to pass each other or a double buggy at 1.2m wide along. Conditions • Retaining the same width of carriageway, provide a 1.5m footway to the council’s adoptable standard along the frontage of site and link Skippers Lane to Johnshill, including relocating lamp posts to the rear of the footway, forming dropped kerbs and amending fences where required. (Note. Separate roads s56 permissions will be needed.) • Provide sightlines of 2.5x25x1.05m at the driveway (Note - this means the wall will be restricted to 1m over some of its length) and the fence fronting the house should similarly be limited to 1m so children passing on the footway do not collide with those exiting the house Notes for intimation to Applicant
Page 62
(i) Construction Consent (s21) (ii) Road Bond (S17)* (iii) Road Openings Permit (s56)* REQUIRED Signed ………………………………………………….. Date ………21/08/23…………………….. Head of Operations & Infrastructure
Page 63
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 26 Apr 2023 11:59:39 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: consultation reply 23/0179/PP (OFFICIAL) Attachments: From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 25 April 2023 08:49 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Clare Murray <clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: consultation reply 23/0179/PP (OFFICIAL) From: O'Hare, Martin (NRS) Sent: 25 April 2023 08:40 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Planning Application 23/0179/PP (OFFICIAL) OFFICIAL Dear Sir or Madam, I refer to the above application for the erection of a single-storey house and associated works on a plot of ground on the eastern boundary of 2 Johnshill, Lochwinnoch, which appeared on the most recent weekly list of applications registered with the Council. I have downloaded details of the proposal from the Council’s online planning system, and having compared these against information contained in the Historic Environment Record, with available cartographic sources, and with previous planning casework, I would like to make the following comments. According to our casework log, we provided comments in 2015 in response to a previous application for the erection of a 1.5 storey house on this site (planning reference 15/0089/PP). Although the design of the house proposed 15/0089/PP is different to the current application, as its position within the plot, both would affect the same area of ground, and would as a result raise comparable archaeological issues. I would therefore reiterate the comments made in response to the 2015 application; these were as follows: The proposed new dwelling would be located within an Archaeological Consultation Trigger (ACT), which in this instance defined in relation to the area of increased archaeological sensitivity associated with the historic core of Lochwinnoch. Little is known about the history of Lochwinnoch before its later development in the 18th/19th century, but it is recorded that the church at Lochwinnoch was a chaplaincy under Paisley Abbey from around 1207 until the Reformation, when it became a parish church. Although the date at which this church was originally founded is not known, the curving shape of the burial ground associated with it is characteristic of early Christian sites, and it has been suggested that the dedication may be to a saint (Winnoc) who dies around 715, again indicating a possible early date. It is likely that a small civil settlement or kirkton would have developed in the vicinity of a church during the medieval period, and this would most likely have been located close to the church and burial ground. The area proposed for development under the current application is located immediately opposite the entrance to the churchyard, and it is therefore possible that ground disturbance associated with construction of the new house and its associated landscaping may disturb archaeological remains associated with early settlement in the area. This interpretation can be supported through comparison with Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15.0&lat=55.80166&lon=- 4.62533&layers=4&b=1), which was conducted in the period 1747-55. The church is easily identifiable on the Roy map, as is the junction between the High Street, Johnshill and Eastend. Roy clearly shows the presence of structures on the southern side of the junction between High Street and Eastend, indicating that the area affected by the current application was developed prior to the mid 18th century. When we commented on the 2015 application, it was noted that numerous mature trees were present in the area that would be affected by construction of the proposed new house. The statement provided in support of the current application indicates that a number of these trees have been removed in the intervening period, but while tree roots are likely to have resulted in some
Page 64
disruption to any buried archaeological deposits that may be present within the plot, they are unlikely to have entirely removed this material. The plans supplied by the applicant indicate a significant proportion of the ground within the plot would be disturbed should the development go ahead, as the house would be associated with new areas of parking and hard landscaping. The new house would also be position directly on the street frontage, which would be the section of the site with the greatest potential to produce sub-surface archaeological material relating to earlier phases of occupation. As a result, it is likely that any archaeological deposits that may be present relating to the early development of the village would be wholly removed. Government policy on the treatment of archaeological material under the planning process is that planning authorities should ensure that prospective developers arrange for any archaeological issues raised by their proposals to be adequately addressed. Given the relatively limited scale of the proposal as a whole, I do not consider that it would be necessary to require archaeological intervention in advance of the development. I would therefore recommend the attachment of the following condition to any consent the Council may be minded to grant, which would allow for an appropriate programme of archaeological work to be tied into any development works: this is the same condition as was recommended in our response to application 15/0089/PP. “The developer shall secure the implementation of an archaeological watching brief, to be carried out by an archaeological organisation acceptable to the Planning Authority during all ground disturbance. The retained archaeological organisation shall be afforded access at all reasonable times and allowed to record, recover and report items of interest and finds. A method statement for the watching brief will be submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the watching brief. The name of the archaeological organisation retained by the developer shall be given to the Planning Authority and to the West of Scotland Archaeology Service in writing not less than 14 days before development commences.” The attachment of this condition to planning consent would allow for archaeological monitoring of any and all groundbreaking work associated with the proposed development. It would require that a suitably qualified and experienced archaeologist be present to identify, record, and recover any significant archaeological remains exposed during the development works, and would ensure that these were reported to an acceptable standard. It would be implemented by means of the developer appointing an appropriately-qualified professional archaeological contractor to monitor the initial phase of ground preparation work associated with the proposal. This watching brief would need to be maintained on the initial stages of all proposed ground disturbance (i.e., the removal of turf and topsoil from those areas of the plot that would be disturbed by construction activity, including the footprints of the new houses, the parking area and areas of landscaping to the east and south of the house, and any new service connections). Depending on the results of this initial phase of monitoring, it may then be necessary for the archaeological contractor to watch subsequent deeper excavations for foundations and such like. If any sensitive archaeological remains or features were encountered during initial or subsequent ground excavation works associated with the development, they could be adequately excavated and recorded by the archaeologist retained by the developer, before their destruction. This would include any post excavation analyses and publication, if required. Regards, Martin O'Hare Martin O'Hare
Page 65
Historic Environment Records Officer West of Scotland Archaeology Service 231 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1RX Tel: 0141 287 8333 email: Martin.O'Hare@wosas.glasgow.gov.uk OFFICIAL Proud host of 2023 UCI Cycling World Championships 3-13 August 2023 Please print responsibly and, if you do, recycle appropriately. Disclaimer: This email is from Glasgow City Council or one of its Arm’s Length Organisations (ALEOs). Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of the council, or ALEO, who will not necessarily be bound by its contents. If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. Please be aware that communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. We therefore strongly advise you not to email any information which, if disclosed to someone else, would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature then please write to us using the postal system. If you choose to email this information to us there can be no guarantee of privacy. Any email, including its content, may be monitored and used by the council, or ALEO, for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software is also used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to make sure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law. Glasgow City Council, or ALEOs, cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks. Protective Marking We are using protective marking software to mark all our electronic and paper information based on its content, and the level of security it needs when being shared, handled and stored. You should be aware of what these marks mean for you when information is shared with you: 1.OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (plus one of four sub categories: Personal Data, Commercial, Operational, Senior Management) - this is information regarding the business of the council or of an individual which is considered to be sensitive. In some instances an email of this category may be marked as PRIVATE 2.OFFICIAL - this is information relating to the business of the council and is considered not to be particularly sensitive 3.NOT OFFICIAL – this is not information about the business of the council. For more information about the Glasgow City Council Protective Marking Policy please visit https://glasgow.gov.uk/protectivemarking For further information and to view the council’s Privacy Statement(s), please click on link below:www.glasgow.gov.uk/privacy
Page 66
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 28 Apr 2023 03:49:24 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: Notice of planning application:23/0179/PP OBJECTION Attachments: -----Original Message----- From: DC Sent: 26 April 2023 17:56 To: DC Subject: FW: Notice of planning application:23/0179/PP OBJECTION -----Original Message----- From: Chantal Sharples Sent: 26 April 2023 17:02 To: DC Subject: Notice of planning application:23/0179/PP To whom this may concern, I’m contacting you concerning the planning application across from St John’s Kirk in Lochwinnoch, which I am appealing against. Lochwinnoch is a very small village mostly consisting of historical buildings at its core. Especially the corner of the old church is a historically important area of the village. Here, we have St John’s Kirk, which was originally built in 1808. Right across, there is the oldest house of our village and further down east end we have impressive original houses. Main Street consists of a mix of Georgian and Victorian style houses and St Winnoc Road hosts Victorian style cottages and a tenement house. The value of this area will significantly decrease by yet another eyesore modern building being allowed to be placed within the centre of the historical village. Any new building permissions should only be considered at the outskirts of town to not further tarnish the character of the village. Furthermore, anyone considering living in a modern house may wish to fully relocate to a city such as Glasgow, which may be more appealing to their tastes with its sky rise buildings and modern architecture. Additionally, the trees that stand in the area of question are old tall trees, which are home to a great population of birds. They live in the tree tops and fly above the loch every night. Tearing down the trees will disturb their natural habitat and may lead to a loss in diversity within the village. As a proud host of the bird conservation area, Lochwinnoch can not stand by natural habitat being destroyed despite it being known as being populated by a flock of birds. Kind regards, Chantal & Jack Sharples Owners of 0/1 9 St Winnoc Road, Lochwinnoch
Page 67
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 12 Sep 2023 11:19:15 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: Planning Application 23/0179/PP Eastend, Lochwinnoch Attachments: From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 05 September 2023 16:39 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Planning Application 23/0179/PP Eastend, Lochwinnoch From: Gwen McCracken <gwen.mccracken@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 05 September 2023 16:30 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Clare Murray <clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Planning Application 23/0179/PP Eastend, Lochwinnoch DMS letter of support From: Andy Doig <cllr.andy.doig@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 23 August 2023 19:48 To: David Love <david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Elaine Matheson <elaine.matheson@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Planning Application 23/0179/PP Eastend, Lochwinnoch Dear David, In a personal capacity I wish to support the above planning application. I have seen their plans and believe they are very much in keeping with the ethos and character of the historic East End of the village, very close to the Auld Simon Church Tower. I urge the Department to approve. Regards, Cllr Andy Doig Sent from Outlook for Android
Page 68
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 25 May 2023 01:45:33 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: rep 23/0179/PP Attachments: From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 22 May 2023 07:38 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Clare Murray <clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: FW:rep 23/0179/PP From: David Hutton Sent: 20 May 2023 13:25 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: 23/01/79/PP I object to the planning applications 23/01/79/pp on the following grounds: 1. Building on this site, beside a grade B listed building within the conservation area of the village of Lochwinnoch, is contrary to the Council’s Local Plan. The removal of the significant trees, know as Lochwinnoch Wood, which add to the character of Auld Simon, will undermine the appearance of Auld Simon and detract from the beauty of this area which is part of the Semple Trail. 2. Auld Simon churchyard suffers from excess water and the development would add to drainage problems for the churchyard. 3. The felling of trees would greatly affect the wildlife. trees have been felled by the applicant and their arboreal report has not been made available or verified by the council which states that the trees are dead. They appeared to be in good health when felled apart from one tree. Birds and bats are evident in this area. A survey for European Protected Species should be carried out as a legal obligation. This has not happened or been paid for by the applicant. Given evidence of bats feeding in the corridor of trees at Auld Simon’s Churchyard and the trees in the proposed development site, Scottish Natural Heritage should also be consulted. Having walked beside the development site last night there is a healthy bat presence as well as many nesting Rooks, Jackdaws and other birds. The wildlife in the development also flourishes in the flora and fauna present on site.
Page 69
4. The tree survey was purchased by the applicant. I question the independence of this survey.
And request that an independent survey should be carried out. I also would question that if the
trees were is such poor state as the applicants Arboreal Report 9.1 suggests that the owner of the
site should have been looking after them on an ongoing basis. Has the owner's failure to maintain
the trees been in their interest given that they have now produced a report that supports removal
of the trees from the site? Which now assists them in locating the proposed development in the
space.
5. The 3D views in the Planning Design and Access Statement suggest
no visual impact on Auld Simon from Johnshill and East End, however in
winter there would be significant impact as there would be no foliage .
6. There is a precedent of this developer applying for planning
permission. no significant changes have occurred since the last
application was denied.
7. The sewage and rain water run off from Johnshill is combined and has
been known to flood particularly in St Winnoc Rd and at the entrance to
the Park Headquarter's car park {beside a kiddies/ family picnic area}.
Further sewage and water run off would add to this issue as the
development would need to pump it up to East end to join the Johnshill
drains or connect down via the drain at the rear of 11 St Winnoc Rd
putting added pressure on the sewage and drainage system, which is
definitely a combined run off.
8. In the light of the questionable tree survey and the misrepresentation of a meeting with Council Planners
during their previous application ,I am suspicious of how factual the applicant has been in their application.
I would appreciate if you would email me back to confirm that the Council has received my
comments prior to the deadline for submission of 24th May 2023.
David C. Hutton
12 St Winnoc Rd
LochwinnochPage 70
1 Eric C. Bea�e, 34 High Street Lochwinnoch PA12 4AA Thursday 11th May 2023. Regarding: 13 St Winnoc Road Lochwinnoch PA12 4ET Planning Applica�on: 23 /01/79/PP. Erec�on of single storey dwellinghouses and associated works, On the Eastern Boundary Of No. 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch, By Mr. David Johnston. Dear Sir / Madam, With regard to the above property please note I wish to formally object to the above noted Planning Applica�on on the grounds noted below. There has been no material change of circumstances in rela�on to the applica�on since the last email / objec�on my neighbour submited, therefore I can see no reason for the previous decision to be overturned. This being the case of no material change in rela�on to the previous applica�on, I would ask then that any previous objec�ons to this applica�on are also included in this present list of objec�ons. There is precedent in this mater, where the 1200 objec�ons to the previous applica�on by Stuart Milne Homes, (No. 1907/66/PP, No Date), regarding the Prac�ce field at Burnfoot Road, Lochwinnoch, where there is also no material change in the circumstances regarding their present applica�on, (No. 17/0629/NO, 29/08/2017), and where the previous 1200 objec�ons have been included with the present list of objec�ons by your department in the most recent applica�on by this housing developer. I consider the wooded area in ques�on as a valuable asset to local flora and fauna. There are wild plants such as bluebells and snowdrops in this fenced off area, along with a significant number of mature trees, which every year provide nes�ng and nursery habitat for numerous bird
Page 71
2 life. Any housing development on this site would nega�vely affect the wildlife in this secluded and unspoilt corner, and I believe it near impossible to build on this site without harming the flora and fauna that reside there. The applicant's arboreal report (commissioned by them) has not been verified by the council which states that the trees are dead. This is not the case as the trees are all in full bloom. In the a�c of a house in Johnshill there is colony of bats, and these bats use the trees as an area to hunt in. This area of trees is also home to a number of Rookeries, where the local Ex-Manager of the RSPB Site at Castle Semple has no�ced a decline in the in number of bird nes�ng sites within the boundaries of the Lochwinnoch area over the last few years, which enhance the rural aspects of our village in Lochwinnoch, the last true village in South Renfrewshire, which is s�ll surrounded by large areas of countryside. I think the needless removal of this local wild space, being replaced by a new housing development, will detract from the overall se�ng and aesthe�c beauty of the “old Simon” church ruin and graveyard. Old Simon is a local focal point that adds charm and history to our village, removing this wooded area, adjacent to Old Simon, will have a nega�ve impact on the look of this part of Lochwinnoch. The archaeology of the site should also be fully inves�gated as there are building remains in this area which may part of Old Simon. There has recently been significant private housing development within the village of Lochwinnoch, with no apparent increase of local ameni�es to supplement any of this development. Many of these proper�es are of similar specifica�on to this proposed new build. Currently many of these proper�es remain for sale for long periods of �me. Why build another one???. The council would be beter engaged in improving the local road network, public transport connec�ons and sewage treatment facili�es, than encourage further unrequired housing development. I also object to the fact that this proposed new dwelling will be sited on an elevated posi�on to the rear of my property, which I feel will incur on my personal privacy. I don’t want my picturesque rural view to the rear of my property removed and replaced by an “unrequired” new build property. Further grounds for my objec�on include; The root system of the exis�ng trees retains water in the surrounding soil for drainage purposes, where our property, and other proper�es may be adversely affected by the increased water run off with the loss of these trees. The drainage pipe for sewage runs under a neighbouring property at 11 St Winnoc Road, where it has not yet been confirmed where the sewage from this site will be safely removed using the exis�ng sewage system, so either my property, and or garden, or other nearby proper�es and gardens could possibly be affected by both water run-off and a possible escape of raw sewage, if for example; there was a burst pipe or extra effluent caused the drainage system to overload, with the associated smells, adversely affec�ng the health of elderly residents in close proximity to this applica�on site.
Page 72
3 Presently, there are some�mes only a few cars parked in the surround area of Auld Simon, which is o�en an important star�ng point for local parades, e.g., Local Gala Day in June, the previous Millennium Walk for Residents of Faith in the village. If this applica�on was allowed to go ahead, this would increase the conges�on of parked and moving vehicles around the oldest monument in Lochwinnoch, especially if family or friends of the applicant are visi�ng or staying in this proposed property, more especially if young children are in the area for the above-men�oned parades, which the local Gala Day is primarily for in the first place. I recognise the applica�on has the right to apply for Planning Permission for this area of ground, the same applicant on a second occasion, but if this applica�on is refused, I would hope that your office make clear to Mr. Johnston that any future likely applica�ons are also likely to be refused considering the grounds of refusal, both on the previous applica�on, and on this present one. I was planning to ask for an extension to the Deadline Objec�on as some of the Planning Applica�on leters unfortunately only seemed to appear in the relevant addresses at the beginning of May, although we are sure this is due to no fault on the part of the Planning Department. Having phoned the Planning Department this morning, Thursday 11th of May, and spoke to a member of staff, I now understand that the Planner has extended the deadline for objec�ons to Wednesday 24th of May, 2023, therefore no request for an extension is required. In the hope that once again this Planning Applica�on will be refused on the grounds noted above, from both myself, and the objec�ons lodged by other residents of Lochwinnoch?? Yours Faithfully, Regards and Best Wishes. Eric C. Bea�e
Page 73
Comments for Planning Application 23/0179/PP Application Summary Application Number: 23/0179/PP Address: Site On Eastern Boundary Of No 2 Johnshill East End Lochwinnoch Proposal: Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and associated works. Case Officer: Clare Murray Customer Details Name: Miss Isobel Barclay Address: 3 Gates Road, Lochwinnoch PA12 4HF Comment Details Commenter Type: Complainant Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Overshadowing - Privacy Comment:The proposed location for the single story dwelling is in such a position that it will overlook our entire back garden and into our bedroom windows. The proposed dwelling will also block our view of the ancient church yard. In addition to this, there are also some very old trees in this area that the local crows roost in every night.
Page 74
1 Mr James Riddell, 13 St Winnoc Road, Lochwinnoch, PA12 4ET. Thursday 11th May 2023 Planning Applica�on: 23 /01/79/PP. Erec�on of single storey dwellinghouses and associated works, On the Eastern Boundary Of No. 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch, By Mr. David Johnston. Dear Sir / Madam, With regard to the above property please note I wish to formally object to the above noted Planning Applica�on on the grounds noted below. There has been no material change of circumstances in rela�on to the applica�on since the last email / objec�on my neighbour submited, therefore I can see no reason for the previous decision to be overturned. This being the case of no material change in rela�on to the previous applica�on, I would ask then that any previous objec�ons to this applica�on are also included in this present list of objec�ons. There is precedent in this mater, where the 1200 objec�ons to the previous applica�on by Stuart Milne Homes, (No. 1907/66/PP, No Date), regarding the Prac�ce field at Burnfoot Road, Lochwinnoch, where there is also no material change in the circumstances regarding their present applica�on, (No. 17/0629/NO, 29/08/2017), and where the previous 1200 objec�ons have been included with the present list of objec�ons by your department in the most recent applica�on by this housing developer. I consider the wooded area in ques�on as a valuable asset to local flora and fauna. There are wild plants such as bluebells and snowdrops in this fenced off area, along with a significant number of mature trees, which every year provide nes�ng and nursery habitat for numerous bird life. Any housing development on this site would nega�vely affect the wildlife in this secluded and unspoilt corner, and I believe it near impossible to build on this site without harming the flora and fauna that reside there. The applicant's arboreal report (commissioned by them) has not been verified by the council which states that the trees are dead. This is not the case as the trees are all in full bloom. In the a�c of a house in Johnshill there is colony of bats, and these bats use the trees as an area to hunt in.
Page 75
2 This area of trees is also home to a number of Rookeries, where the local Ex-Manager of the RSPB Site at Castle Semple has no�ced a decline in the in number of bird nes�ng sites within the boundaries of the Lochwinnoch area over the last few years, which enhance the rural aspects of our village in Lochwinnoch, the last true village in South Renfrewshire, which is s�ll surrounded by large areas of countryside. I think the needless removal of this local wild space, being replaced by a new housing development, will detract from the overall se�ng and aesthe�c beauty of the “old Simon” church ruin and graveyard. Old Simon is a local focal point that adds charm and history to our village, removing this wooded area, adjacent to Old Simon, will have a nega�ve impact on the look of this part of Lochwinnoch. The archaeology of the site should also be fully inves�gated as there are building remains in this area which may part of Old Simon. There has recently been significant private housing development within the village of Lochwinnoch, with no apparent increase of local ameni�es to supplement any of this development. Many of these proper�es are of similar specifica�on to this proposed new build. Currently many of these proper�es remain for sale for long periods of �me. Why build another one???. The council would be beter engaged in improving the local road network, public transport connec�ons and sewage treatment facili�es, than encourage further unrequired housing development. I also object to the fact that this proposed new dwelling will be sited on an elevated posi�on to the rear of my property, which I feel will incur on my personal privacy. I don’t want my picturesque rural view to the rear of my property removed and replaced by an “unrequired” new build property. Further grounds for my objec�on include; The root system of the exis�ng trees retains water in the surrounding soil for drainage purposes, where our property, and other proper�es may be adversely affected by the increased water run off with the loss of these trees. The drainage pipe for sewage runs under a neighbouring property at 11 St Winnoc Road, where it has not yet been confirmed where the sewage from this site will be safely removed using the exis�ng sewage system, so either my property, and or garden, or other nearby proper�es and gardens could possibly be affected by both water run-off and a possible escape of raw sewage, if for example; there was a burst pipe or extra effluent caused the drainage system to overload, with the associated smells, adversely affec�ng the health of elderly residents in close proximity to this applica�on site. Presently, there are some�mes only a few cars parked in the surround area of Auld Simon, which is o�en an important star�ng point for local parades, e.g., Local Gala Day in June, the previous Millennium Walk for Residents of Faith in the village. If this applica�on was allowed to go ahead, this would increase the conges�on of parked and moving vehicles around the oldest monument in Lochwinnoch, especially if family or friends of the applicant are visi�ng or staying in this proposed property, more especially if young children are in the area for the above-men�oned parades, which the local Gala Day is primarily for in the first place.
Page 76
3 I recognise the applica�on has the right to apply for Planning Permission for this area of ground, the same applicant on a second occasion, but if this applica�on is refused, I would hope that your office make clear to Mr. Johnston that any future likely applica�ons are also likely to be refused considering the grounds of refusal, both on the previous applica�on, and on this present one. I was planning to ask for an extension to the Deadline Objec�on as some of the Planning Applica�on leters unfortunately only seemed to appear in the relevant addresses at the beginning of May, although we are sure this is due to no fault on the part of the Planning Department. Having phoned the Planning Department this morning, Thursday 11th of May, and spoke to a member of staff, I now understand that the Planner has extended the deadline for objec�ons to Wednesday 24th of May, 2023, therefore no request for an extension is required. In the hope that once again this Planning Applica�on will be refused on the grounds noted above, from both myself, and the objec�ons lodged by other residents of Lochwinnoch?? Yours Faithfully, Regards and Best Wishes. Eric C. Bea�e
Page 77
Comments for Planning Application 23/0179/PP Application Summary Application Number: 23/0179/PP Address: Site On Eastern Boundary Of No 2 Johnshill East End Lochwinnoch Proposal: Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and associated works. Case Officer: Clare Murray Customer Details Name: Mrs JANE MILLAR Address: Stanehyve, 11 St Winnoc Road, Lochwinnoch PA12 4ET Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Residential Amenity Comment:I wish to lodge my objection to this application until it is clarified where the existing sewer is that any additional sewage and drainage will be joined into.
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
1 Lynn C. Bea�e, 34 High Street Lochwinnoch PA12 4AA Thursday 11th May 2023. Regarding: 13 St Winnoc Road Lochwinnoch PA12 4ET Planning Applica�on: 23 /01/79/PP. Erec�on of single storey dwellinghouses and associated works, On the Eastern Boundary Of No. 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch, By Mr. David Johnston. Dear Sir / Madam, With regard to the above property please note I wish to formally object to the above noted Planning Applica�on on the grounds noted below. There has been no material change of circumstances in rela�on to the applica�on since the last email / objec�on my neighbour submited, therefore I can see no reason for the previous decision to be overturned. This being the case of no material change in rela�on to the previous applica�on, I would ask then that any previous objec�ons to this applica�on are also included in this present list of objec�ons. There is precedent in this mater, where the 1200 objec�ons to the previous applica�on by Stuart Milne Homes, (No. 1907/66/PP, No Date), regarding the Prac�ce field at Burnfoot Road, Lochwinnoch, where there is also no material change in the circumstances regarding their present applica�on, (No. 17/0629/NO, 29/08/2017), and where the previous 1200 objec�ons have been included with the present list of objec�ons by your department in the most recent applica�on by this housing developer. I consider the wooded area in ques�on as a valuable asset to local flora and fauna. There are wild plants such as bluebells and snowdrops in this fenced off area, along with a significant number of mature trees, which every year provide nes�ng and nursery habitat for numerous bird
Page 85
2 life. Any housing development on this site would nega�vely affect the wildlife in this secluded and unspoilt corner, and I believe it near impossible to build on this site without harming the flora and fauna that reside there. The applicant's arboreal report (commissioned by them) has not been verified by the council which states that the trees are dead. This is not the case as the trees are all in full bloom. In the a�c of a house in Johnshill there is colony of bats, and these bats use the trees as an area to hunt in. This area of trees is also home to a number of Rookeries, where the local Ex-Manager of the RSPB Site at Castle Semple has no�ced a decline in the in number of bird nes�ng sites within the boundaries of the Lochwinnoch area over the last few years, which enhance the rural aspects of our village in Lochwinnoch, the last true village in South Renfrewshire, which is s�ll surrounded by large areas of countryside. I think the needless removal of this local wild space, being replaced by a new housing development, will detract from the overall se�ng and aesthe�c beauty of the “old Simon” church ruin and graveyard. Old Simon is a local focal point that adds charm and history to our village, removing this wooded area, adjacent to Old Simon, will have a nega�ve impact on the look of this part of Lochwinnoch. The archaeology of the site should also be fully inves�gated as there are building remains in this area which may part of Old Simon. There has recently been significant private housing development within the village of Lochwinnoch, with no apparent increase of local ameni�es to supplement any of this development. Many of these proper�es are of similar specifica�on to this proposed new build. Currently many of these proper�es remain for sale for long periods of �me. Why build another one???. The council would be beter engaged in improving the local road network, public transport connec�ons and sewage treatment facili�es, than encourage further unrequired housing development. I also object to the fact that this proposed new dwelling will be sited on an elevated posi�on to the rear of my property, which I feel will incur on my personal privacy. I don’t want my picturesque rural view to the rear of my property removed and replaced by an “unrequired” new build property. Further grounds for my objec�on include; The root system of the exis�ng trees retains water in the surrounding soil for drainage purposes, where our property, and other proper�es may be adversely affected by the increased water run off with the loss of these trees. The drainage pipe for sewage runs under a neighbouring property at 11 St Winnoc Road, where it has not yet been confirmed where the sewage from this site will be safely removed using the exis�ng sewage system, so either my property, and or garden, or other nearby proper�es and gardens could possibly be affected by both water run-off and a possible escape of raw sewage, if for example; there was a burst pipe or extra effluent caused the drainage system to overload, with the associated smells, adversely affec�ng the health of elderly residents in close proximity to this applica�on site.
Page 86
3 Presently, there are some�mes only a few cars parked in the surround area of Auld Simon, which is o�en an important star�ng point for local parades, e.g., Local Gala Day in June, the previous Millennium Walk for Residents of Faith in the village. If this applica�on was allowed to go ahead, this would increase the conges�on of parked and moving vehicles around the oldest monument in Lochwinnoch, especially if family or friends of the applicant are visi�ng or staying in this proposed property, more especially if young children are in the area for the above-men�oned parades, which the local Gala Day is primarily for in the first place. I recognise the applica�on has the right to apply for Planning Permission for this area of ground, the same applicant on a second occasion, but if this applica�on is refused, I would hope that your office make clear to Mr. Johnston that any future likely applica�ons are also likely to be refused considering the grounds of refusal, both on the previous applica�on, and on this present one. I was planning to ask for an extension to the Deadline Objec�on as some of the Planning Applica�on leters unfortunately only seemed to appear in the relevant addresses at the beginning of May, although we are sure this is due to no fault on the part of the Planning Department. Having phoned the Planning Department this morning, Thursday 11th of May, and spoke to a member of staff, I now understand that the Planner has extended the deadline for objec�ons to Wednesday 24th of May, 2023, therefore no request for an extension is required. In the hope that once again this Planning Applica�on will be refused on the grounds noted above, from both myself, and the objec�ons lodged by other residents of Lochwinnoch?? Yours Faithfully, Regards and Best Wishes. Eric C. Bea�e
Page 87
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 09 May 2023 11:11:10 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: Objection to Planning Application number 23/0179/PP Attachments: From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 09 May 2023 08:56 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Clare Murray <clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Objection to Planning Application number 23/0179/PP From: Maggie Kinloch May 2023 22:59 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Objection to Planning Application number 23/0179/PP To whom it may concern: I register my objection to this planning application. I am taken aback to note that a third application has been submitted by the same applicant. Surely no means no? Their previous two applications were rejected and there has been no material change of circumstances in relation to the application., except for the removal of three diseased trees on the plot. These were removed by the applicant, and one cannot help but think that this was with a new application in mind I can therefore see no reason for the previous decision to be overturned. It is worthy of note that last time round a council delegation of elected members and planning officers actually visited the site and having seen how very close to the heritage village boundary the site is, along with other reasons, they refused the application. That remains a significant reason to refuse the application. Although a new building is currently under construction nearby…which is very surprising…it is further away from this historic little corner I object on the following grounds: I consider the wooded area in question as a valuable asset to local flora and fauna. There are wild plants such as bluebells and snowdrops in this fenced off area, along with a significant number of healthy, mature trees, which every year provide significant nesting and nursery habitat for numerous bird life. Any housing development on this site would very negatively affect the wildlife in this secluded and unspoilt corner, and I believe it almost impossible to build on this site without harming the flora and fauna that reside there. The applicant's previous arboreal report (commissioned by them) was not verified by the council and it stated that the trees were dead. This was not the case for all trees, as the trees were all in full bloom. However three were subsequently removed
Page 88
In the attic of a house in Johnshill there is a colony of bats and these bats use the trees as an area in which to hunt. I believe it would be damaging to this protected species if their hunting ground were removed I think the needless removal of this local wild space, being replaced by a new housing development, will detract from the overall historic setting and aesthetic beauty of the “old Simon” church ruin and graveyard, which is immediately adjacent. Old Simon is a local focal point that adds charm and history to our village. Removing this wooded area, adjacent to Old Simon, would certainly have a negative impact on the look of this part of Lochwinnoch. The archaeology of the site should also be fully investigated as there are building remains in this area which may be part of Old Simon. Further, the annual gala day procession gathers there and begins its journey from there. There has recently been significant private housing development within the village of Lochwinnoch, and others in the pipeline, with no apparent increase of local amenities to supplement any of this development. Many of these properties are of similar specification to this proposed new build. Currently many of these properties remain for sale for long periods of time. Why build another one? I further object to the fact that this proposed new dwelling will be sited on an elevated position at the rear of my property, which will encroach on my personal privacy. The picturesque rural view to the rear of my property …currently a haven for bats and birds and wildflowers and trees... would be destroyed, so as to allow this building development. I cannot see why that would be approved, when a decision to refuse has already been made twice. Isn’t it time to refuse in perpetuity? For clarity, I object in the strongest possible terms, on the above grounds Yours sincerely Professor Maggie Kinloch FRSE Sent from my iPad Sent from Outlook for iOS
Page 89
From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 25 May 2023 01:45:28 To: dc.bs@renfrewshire.gov.uk Cc: Subject: FW: rep 23/0179/PP Attachments: From: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Sent: 22 May 2023 07:36 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Cc: Clare Murray <clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: rep 23/0179/PP From: Alison Morrison Sent: 21 May 2023 14:33 To: DC <dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk> Subject: Planning application 23/01/79/PP
Page 90
No embedded text on this page.
Page 91
Sent from my iPhone
Page 92
Comments for Planning Application 23/0179/PP Application Summary Application Number: 23/0179/PP Address: Site On Eastern Boundary Of No 2 Johnshill East End Lochwinnoch Proposal: Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and associated works. Case Officer: Clare Murray Customer Details Name: Morag Mcfadden Address: Dundonald, Johnshill, Lochwinnoch PA12 4ES Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The correct option for my comment is unavailable. I have no objections provided that it is guaranteed none of the trees, which have been depleted with each planning application, will be harmed from leaf to root system. The trees have supported a variety of wildlife and there is now less opportunity for birds to nest and feed. Regards
Page 93
Comments for Planning Application 23/0179/PP Application Summary Application Number: 23/0179/PP Address: Site On Eastern Boundary Of No 2 Johnshill East End Lochwinnoch Proposal: Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and associated works. Case Officer: Clare Murray Customer Details Name: Mr ROY TAIT Address: Hollywells, East End, Lochwinnoch PA12 4ER Comment Details Commenter Type: Complainant Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Traffic Movement/Safety Comment:CONCERN OVER TRAFFIC ENTERING OR EXITING EASTEND, THE LANE IS NARROW AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE IS VERY TIGHT, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THIS WORK WILL NOT IMPACT ON LOCAL TRAFFIC. THIS IS THE MAIN ACCESS ROAD FOR THE DWELLINGS ON EASTEND, THIS INCLUDES SERVICES AND BIN LORRIES. IN ADDITION TRAFFIC SEEKING TO EXIT EASTEND ONTO THE JOHNSHILL WILL APPROACH THIS SITE FROM AN ALMOST BLIND BEND.
Page 94
1 Mrs Sandra Riddell, 13 St Winnoc Road, Lochwinnoch, PA12 4ET. Thursday 11th May 2023 Planning Applica�on: 23 /01/79/PP. Erec�on of single storey dwellinghouses and associated works, On the Eastern Boundary Of No. 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch, By Mr. David Johnston. Dear Sir / Madam, With regard to the above property please note I wish to formally object to the above noted Planning Applica�on on the grounds noted below. There has been no material change of circumstances in rela�on to the applica�on since the last email / objec�on my neighbour submited, therefore I can see no reason for the previous decision to be overturned. This being the case of no material change in rela�on to the previous applica�on, I would ask then that any previous objec�ons to this applica�on are also included in this present list of objec�ons. There is precedent in this mater, where the 1200 objec�ons to the previous applica�on by Stuart Milne Homes, (No. 1907/66/PP, No Date), regarding the Prac�ce field at Burnfoot Road, Lochwinnoch, where there is also no material change in the circumstances regarding their present applica�on, (No. 17/0629/NO, 29/08/2017), and where the previous 1200 objec�ons have been included with the present list of objec�ons by your department in the most recent applica�on by this housing developer. I consider the wooded area in ques�on as a valuable asset to local flora and fauna. There are wild plants such as bluebells and snowdrops in this fenced off area, along with a significant number of mature trees, which every year provide nes�ng and nursery habitat for numerous bird life. Any housing development on this site would nega�vely affect the wildlife in this secluded and unspoilt corner, and I believe it near impossible to build on this site without harming the flora and fauna that reside there. The applicant's arboreal report (commissioned by them) has not been verified by the council which states that the trees are dead. This is not the case as the trees are all in full bloom. In the a�c of a house in Johnshill there is colony of bats, and these bats use the trees as an area to hunt in.
Page 95
2 This area of trees is also home to a number of Rookeries, where the local Ex-Manager of the RSPB Site at Castle Semple has no�ced a decline in the in number of bird nes�ng sites within the boundaries of the Lochwinnoch area over the last few years, which enhance the rural aspects of our village in Lochwinnoch, the last true village in South Renfrewshire, which is s�ll surrounded by large areas of countryside. I think the needless removal of this local wild space, being replaced by a new housing development, will detract from the overall se�ng and aesthe�c beauty of the “old Simon” church ruin and graveyard. Old Simon is a local focal point that adds charm and history to our village, removing this wooded area, adjacent to Old Simon, will have a nega�ve impact on the look of this part of Lochwinnoch. The archaeology of the site should also be fully inves�gated as there are building remains in this area which may part of Old Simon. There has recently been significant private housing development within the village of Lochwinnoch, with no apparent increase of local ameni�es to supplement any of this development. Many of these proper�es are of similar specifica�on to this proposed new build. Currently many of these proper�es remain for sale for long periods of �me. Why build another one???. The council would be beter engaged in improving the local road network, public transport connec�ons and sewage treatment facili�es, than encourage further unrequired housing development. I also object to the fact that this proposed new dwelling will be sited on an elevated posi�on to the rear of my property, which I feel will incur on my personal privacy. I don’t want my picturesque rural view to the rear of my property removed and replaced by an “unrequired” new build property. Further grounds for my objec�on include; The root system of the exis�ng trees retains water in the surrounding soil for drainage purposes, where our property, and other proper�es may be adversely affected by the increased water run off with the loss of these trees. The drainage pipe for sewage runs under a neighbouring property at 11 St Winnoc Road, where it has not yet been confirmed where the sewage from this site will be safely removed using the exis�ng sewage system, so either my property, and or garden, or other nearby proper�es and gardens could possibly be affected by both water run-off and a possible escape of raw sewage, if for example; there was a burst pipe or extra effluent caused the drainage system to overload, with the associated smells, adversely affec�ng the health of elderly residents in close proximity to this applica�on site. Presently, there are some�mes only a few cars parked in the surround area of Auld Simon, which is o�en an important star�ng point for local parades, e.g., Local Gala Day in June, the previous Millennium Walk for Residents of Faith in the village. If this applica�on was allowed to go ahead, this would increase the conges�on of parked and moving vehicles around the oldest monument in Lochwinnoch, especially if family or friends of the applicant are visi�ng or staying in this proposed property, more especially if young children are in the area for the above-men�oned parades, which the local Gala Day is primarily for in the first place.
Page 96
3 I recognise the applica�on has the right to apply for Planning Permission for this area of ground, the same applicant on a second occasion, but if this applica�on is refused, I would hope that your office make clear to Mr. Johnston that any future likely applica�ons are also likely to be refused considering the grounds of refusal, both on the previous applica�on, and on this present one. I was planning to ask for an extension to the Deadline Objec�on as some of the Planning Applica�on leters unfortunately only seemed to appear in the relevant addresses at the beginning of May, although we are sure this is due to no fault on the part of the Planning Department. Having phoned the Planning Department this morning, Thursday 11th of May, and spoke to a member of staff, I now understand that the Planner has extended the deadline for objec�ons to Wednesday 24th of May, 2023, therefore no request for an extension is required. In the hope that once again this Planning Applica�on will be refused on the grounds noted above, from both myself, and the objec�ons lodged by other residents of Lochwinnoch?? Yours Faithfully, Regards and Best Wishes. Eric C. Bea�e