Appellant submission complete
Renfrewshire Council · 26 March 2024
Back to Local Review Body. — 26 March 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
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
Page 2
Notice of Review Page 1 of 4 NOTICE OF REVIEW UNDER SECTION 43A(8) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED)IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS; THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCHEMES OF DELEGATION AND LOCAL REVIEW PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008; AND THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form. Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your notice of review. Please use BLOCK CAPITALS if completing in ink The completed notice of review and any supporting documents should be sent by e-mail to lrb-planning.cs@renfrewshire.gov.uk, or by mail or by hand to the Head of Corporate Governance, Finance & Resources, Renfrewshire Council, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1TR. Applicant(s) Agent (if any) Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No E-mail* E-mail* Mark this box to confirm all contact should be through this representative: X Yes No * Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? X Planning authority Note. This notice must be served on the Council within three months of the date of the decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application. Refer to agent Contact Telephone 1 Contact Telephone 2 Fax No Renfrewshire Council Name Address Postcode Name Address Postcode Planning application reference number Site address Description of proposed development Date of application Date of decision ( if any ) David Johnston Flat 0/2 174 Clarkston Road Glasgow G44 3DN CCC Planning Consultancy 25 Yarrow Crescent Bishopton PA7 5ED Refer to Agent 23/0179/PP Site on eastern boundary of No.2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and associated works. 06/04/23 08/09/23
Page 3
Notice of Review Page 2 of 4 Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) 2. Application for planning permission in principle 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition) 4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions Reasons for seeking review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer 2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for determination of the application 3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer Review procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions 2. One or more hearing sessions 3. Site inspection 4 Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a hearing are necessary: Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: Yes No 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? 2 Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? If there are reasons why you think the Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: X X n/a X X n/a X
Page 4
Notice of Review Page 3 of 4 Statement You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. If the Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, you will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by that person or body. State here the reasons for your notice of review and all matters you wish to raise. If necessary, this can be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation with this form. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No determination on your application was made? If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered in your review. List of documents and evidence Please see attached Appeal Statement dated 24th November 2023. X n/a
Page 5
Notice of Review Page 4 of 4 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. Note. The Council will make a copy of the notice of review, the review documents and any notice of the procedure of the review available for inspection at Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley until such time as the review is determined. It may also be available on the Council’s website. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm you have provided all supporting documents and evidence relevant to your review: Full completion of all parts of this form Statement of your reasons for requiring a review All documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (e.g. plans and drawings or other documents) which are now the subject of this review. Note. Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice from that earlier consent. Declaration I the applicant/agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the Council to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Date For office use only: CCC Planning Consultancy LRB Reference No: - Appeal Statement - Planning, Design & Access Statement - Tree Survey - ATK Foundation Report (Dec ’22) & Revision A (Nov ’23) - Planting Plan - Site Section Plan - Application Plans - Decision Notice & Report of Handling (Delegated) - Application Form X X X 24/11/23
Page 6
Planning Appeal Statement Erection of Single Storey Dwellinghouse and Associated Works Site On Eastern Boundary of No 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch Application No. 23/0179/PP Mr David Johnston Visualisation of Proposed Development 24 November 2023
Page 7
Introduction This statement relates to an application for review to Renfrewshire Council’s Local Review Body under Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 (as amended) of the Council’s delegated decision to refuse planning permission for the erection of a single storey dwellinghouse on land at the junction of Johnshill and East End, Lochwinnoch. The planning application was refused on 8 September 2023 and this application for review is therefore competent, having been submitted within three months of the date of the decision notice. Existing Site and Surrounding Area The appeal 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. The appeal site extends to approximately 0.15 acres and generally slopes downwards from north to south and west to east. The site contains 14 mixed deciduous trees in various state of decline with the peripheral trees overhanging the public highway and the adjacent properties bordering it. There are remains of a historic stone wall at the site. It should be noted that the appeal site is a brownfield site (identified as ‘white land’ on the Proposals Map) within the existing settlement of Lochwinnoch. The site is approximately 250 metres from the designated town centre in Lochwinnoch, which sits to the south-west. The site is within an existing residential area and surrounded by housing on three sides. The land to the north, across East End comprises the former B listed St Winoc’s Church, beyond which lies further housing. The housing that has been built north of the church is of modern construction and the detached dwellings sit within a mature townscape, within the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the application site is within Lochwinnoch Conservation Area. It is further acknowledged that any development proposed in this location may have an impact on the setting of the nearby B listed St Winoc’s Church and Churchyard. In assessing potential impact, there are four key questions that are particularly relevant when considering the relationships between landscapes and historic buildings: • What does the location of the historic building contribute to its importance or character, for example through the siting of the building or aesthetic considerations? • How does the landscape character of the setting contribute to our understanding of its importance or character, for example through derelict and/or current land uses, or views to and from the building. • What is the historical importance of the site and/or landscape on a local, regional or national level? • Does any proposed development adversely change any of the foregoing? These tests can then be applied to determine the extent to which any change or development might be acceptable within the wider historic envelope. From a review of old Ordnance Survey Maps (refer to submitted Planning, Design and Access Statement) it is evident that, although the site is currently clear of development, the site was previously developed for housing. The 1856 Ordnance Survey Map for Lochwinnoch (see Figure 1
Page 8
below) shows a row of residential properties along the south side of East End opposite the church leading to the foot path (Skippers Path) that leads from East End to Gates Road. The parcel of land to the immediate south-east was at that time vacant and has subsequently been developed, as I understand it by the local authority; to the rear of the local authority housing there are a few dilapidated timber sheds and garages which would have presumably served the adjoining housing. Figure 1 - OS extract from 1856 showing appeal site identified with red dot. The historic setting of Auld Simon was as a building at the heart of a township, as seen in Figure 1. The historic building pattern remains in part to Johnshill. The new properties on the west side of Johnshill assist in some way in restoring and maintaining this historic setting. Similarly building or buildings on the south side of East End would be consistent with the historic setting of Auld Simon. On the scale of buildings to the south it is likely they these were single storey cottages, or possibly very low two storey buildings similar to the couple remaining on Johnshill. The fact is, that the appeal site is a previously developed brownfield site. Furthermore, the site is not subject of an environmental designation. Policy 7 ‘Historic assets and places’ and Policy 9 ‘Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings’ of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) are relevant to the assessment of this proposal. 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 and enhanced and that these should be preserved in situ where possible. This includes the retention of structures, boundary walls, railings, trees and hedges. The thrust of this policy is not to prevent change, however, but rather to manage it in a way which avoids or minimises any adverse impacts on heritage assets. 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, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account.
Page 9
Tree removal recommended by an arboriculture report accompanying the planning application has been consented through tree works application ref. 22/0426/TC and this has been undertaken. Renfrewshire Council issued a notice under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 that overhanging trees are to be cut back to a minimum of 5.5 metres above the road and at least 1 metre from the edge of the carriageway. Policy P1 of the adopted Renfrewshire Local Development Plan August 2021 (LDP) 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). It considers that development proposals require to ensure that the layout, built form, design and materials of all new developments will be of a 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. It is accepted that the existing trees on the site are an ecological feature which make a positive contribution to the character of the area. However, it is also important to understand the history of the site and consider whether the redevelopment of part of the site would enhance the character of the conservation area. Proposal The proposed 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 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 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 (refer to submitted plan showing the footprint of the proposed dwellinghouse and the remaining trees). The existing railing will be maintained and repaired to the west frontage and a new sandstone wall bounding East End Road will be erected along the north frontage. The stonework will match the boundary wall opposite the site, i.e. The Auld Simon stone wall. The intention is to recreate 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 front cover of appeal statement showing a visual of the proposed development). Access would be taken from the north-east 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. To retain the original aesthetics of the area and the tree line running from The Auld Simon grounds, through the proposed development 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. 862 to 864 as referred to in the arboreal report) will be maintained and similar native species will be planted to enhance and ensure the future of the wooded site, attract wildlife and ensure that the site retains the charm and history of this part of the village.
Page 10
All retained trees would undergo recommended remedial tree management works. There is an opportunity to undertake proper tree management on the remaining trees, introduce new appropriate species planting and ensure that the long-term benefits of the trees on the townscape can be properly maintained (refer to submitted planting plan). The delegated report of handling states “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.” Reasons For Refusal Planning permission was refused for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 7 ‘Historic Assets and Places’, of NPF4 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 area. It will be evident from review of the submitted plans that the proposed dwellinghouse is of modest scale and that it is proposed to be constructed using traditional materials. Indeed, the delegated report of handling states that the “dwellinghouse is of vernacular style….has good quality finishes….which is appropriate for the area.” No trees will be removed to enable the development to take place. Without proper tree management the process of decline will increase rapidly. New native planting is proposed to ensure that tree cover is maintained in the long term in a manner which is appropriate and suitable to the setting. It is important to recognise that the site is a brownfield site with no environmental designations. 2. That the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9 ‘Brownfield land, vacant and derelict land, and empty buildings’ of NPF4 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. The accompanying tree survey report (submitted in response to the notice issued under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 by the Council’s Environment and Infrastructure Services), observed that the tree stock is in various states of decline with the peripheral trees overhanging the public highway and the adjacent properties bordering it. The report states: “The mature trees and ground cover are heavily cloaked with ivy and roadside trees are substantially overhanging the carriageway….some trees are in poor condition and recommended for removal. Chalara Ash dieback has also colonised the site.” Only regular and remedial tree husbandry will help combat the likelihood of branch failure and reduce associated concerns.
Page 11
There is an opportunity to undertake proper tree management on the remaining trees, introduce new appropriate species planting and ensure that the long-term benefits of the trees on the townscape can be properly maintained. The proposed dwellinghouse would be located centrally within the site in an area where there are no trees. 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. It is acknowledged that BS5837:2012 requires buildings and structures to be sited to allow adequate space for tree’s natural development and at the same time reduce future pressure for removal of trees. The submitted structural engineering report details the various foundation options (with particular attention paid to the close proximity of roots) and recommends a system of Shire stabilisers or similar. These are small scale piles developed for the domestic market and do not require heavy specialist plant that could damage shallow roots. The advantage of using such a system is the small-scale nature of the piles which are driven in manually without the need for heavy plant traversing the site. Should tree roots appear within the piling area it should be easy to move the location of the pile to miss these. Paragraph 5.3 of the report states: “From the information available at this stage we are of the opinion that a suitable footprint of around 10 metres x 7 metres should be capable of fitting between the remaining trees. “ 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. The site contains 14 mixed deciduous trees in various states of decline. The mature trees and ground cover are heavily cloaked with ivy and roadside trees are substantially overhanging the carriageway. Chalara Ash dieback has also colonised the site. Only 4 of the trees are classed in good condition, ie. a sound tree needing little if any attention at the time of the survey.
Page 12
In a short period of time the amenity value of the trees and their contribution to the conservation area will decline as they die, limbs break off or they become stag headed. Only with proper tree management will the long-term amenity value of the site be achieved. The application proposes complementary planting to ensure that tree cover is maintained in the long term in a manner which is appropriate and suitable to the setting and in a manner which will allow the site to be properly managed. The long-term prospects are for the setting to be enhanced rather than deteriorate further. 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 several ‘fair’ trees will be maintained and similar native species planted to enhance and ensure the future of the tree cover. The provision of stone boundary walls and refurbishment of the site boundary railings will similarly improve the setting of the area and its amenity value. It should be recognised that, although the site is currently clear of development, the site was previously (and historically) developed for housing. 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. The development proposes a modest single storey dwellinghouse in the centre of the site (refer to submitted visual and accompanying plans). The site extends to approximately 0.15 acres. Excluding the woodland area leaves an area of 440 square metres and the proposed dwellinghouse has a footprint of just 90 square metres, equating to just 20% of the developable area. The proposed dwellinghouse is set some distance from Johnshill and would be obscured from view to people travelling north along this road by both existing housing and the existing, retained tree cover. There is no impact whatsoever on the view to the church front gable as the gable faces directly south down towards the High Street and the view to the gable is generally uninterrupted. As stated previously, there is an opportunity to undertake proper tree management on the remaining trees, introduce new appropriate species planting and ensure that the long-term benefits of the trees on the townscape can be properly maintained. Policy ENV 3 states that new development should demonstrate that there is no negative impact on built heritage assets, and I would argue that the application supporting evidence addresses that requirement, specifically in respect of the Planning, Design and Access Statement, the Tree Condition Survey and the way we have approached the design and form of the dwellinghouse.
Page 13
It is also worth remembering that Policy 7 ‘Historic assets and places’ of NPF4 seeks to protect and enhance historic and environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Conclusion The case officer’s assessment of the application ignores the positive contribution that the new development would make to enhance the character of the area (remembering it was historically a housing site) and the setting of the listed building. In our view the opportunity to undertake the essential tree management and to improve the boundaries of the appeal site have been overlooked and are clearly positive aspects in the argument. Improvements brought about by this development will contribute to an overall enhancement of the area whilst introducing the opportunity for long term site management. We maintain that the site is more than capable of absorbing a single modest dwellinghouse of the proportions proposed. The additional planting will ensure that tree cover is maintained for the long term but also in a way that is manageable and ensures proper site tree management. The development opportunity is unique, and we would argue that the proposal does not offend current national guidance, local development plan policies or supplementary guidance, nor is it in conflict with Historic Environment Scotland’s guidance. It is respectfully requested that the appeal is upheld and planning permission granted for the proposed development.
Page 14
A.T.K. PARTNERSHIP CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS REVISION A – NOVEMBER 2023 STRUCTURAL APPRAISAL ON FOUNDATION OPTIONS PROJECT : PROPOSED HOUSE at EAST END, LOCHWINNOCH CLIENT : Mr D JOHNSTON PROJECT REF NO : 16781 DATE : DECEMBER 2022 33 UNION STREET GREENOCK PA16 8DN Tel: (01475) 787797 Email: mail@atk-partnership.co.uk
Page 15
1.0 Introduction 1.1 ATK Partnership were invited to review the options available to form the foundations for the proposed house with particular attention being paid to the close proximity to the existing trees. 2.0 Scope of the report 2.1 The scope of the following report was to investigate the various foundations readily available and to advise on the best solution. A site inspection was carried out on the 8th December 2022. 2.2 The investigation comprised a visual non-disruptive inspection of the site and no trial pits or boreholes were carried out. 2.3 A topographical survey was made available along with a tree condition report prepared by Ayrshire Tree Surgeons. 2.4 Photographs are also included which help to identify the density of the present growth on site. 3.0 Observations 3.1 The site comprises a long almost rectangular shaped site with a broader triangular shaped section to the rear. It lies opposite the church known as Auld Simon and at the junction of Johnshill and East End. 3.2 The proposed house will be detached, probably a one and a half storey built in timber frame construction and located as shown on the attached plan. 3.3 The main trees which will be closely affected are shown on the site plan along with others lying outwith the building area. 3.4 The construction using timber frame will be fairly light around 35kN/m and may have a brick outer cladding but also may have a timber cladding as an alternative. 3.5 The ground floor construction is likely to be a suspended concrete floor with integral insulation to help form the U-values. 3.6 Since the tree survey report some of the badly affected ( rotted ) trees have been taken down in line with the recommendations of the tree report. 4.0 Foundation options 4.1 Traditional strips 4.2 On the basis that the soil conditions are favourable and ordinary strip foundations are possible these would be expected to be constructed at around 600mm down from the proposed ground. 4.3 However the foundations will be prone to damage by the remaining roots of the trees and in line with guidance by the NHBC consideration must be given to the use
Page 16
of trench fill concrete to take the excavations below the level of anticipated damage. Along with the use of trench fill it would be sensible to use a root barrier system to help prevent damage to the founds. 4.4 The excavations for the foundations may also do damage to the root infestation locally within the house footprint with any remaining trees also affected by this root loss. 4.5 Raft Slab 4.6 Due to the light loads involved a simple slab raft would also be a suitable option sitting on a cushion of compacted hardcore. 4.7 However due to the preferred detail of having a limited excavation the existing roots will still exist under the raft slab, probably through the hardcore, and may lead to structural damage to the slab in time. 4.8 Piling 4.9 Piling would be solution by excluding the loads being taken down on to the immediate sub-surface soils. Due to the nature of the piles involved the loads would be taken further down into the sub-soils and below the level of the expected root bowl. The perimeter walls and any internal loadbearing lines would be supported on concrete ground beams spanning between the piles. 4.10 The ground floor would be constructed with either a cast in-situ concrete slab supported on a permanent steel sheet formwork such as Holorib or Ribdeck. This would help to support the floor and span across the top of any root system below the footprint of the house. An alternative could the use of beam and block flooring which is a sectional floor system but again spanning clear between the ground beams. 4.11 There are various piling systems available using driven steel tubes or continuous flight auger piles which all do the same job of transferring the loads below the sensitive areas. 5.0 Recommendations 5.1 On the basis of the above options and trying to limit the damage on site we are of the opinion that a system of piling using Shire stabilisers or similar would prove to be the best option. These are small scale piles developed for the domestic market and do not require heavy specialist plant that could damage shallow roots. 5.2 The advantage of using such a system is the small scale nature of the piles which are driven in manually without the need for heavy plant traversing the site. Should tree roots appear within the piling area it should be easy to move the location of the piles to miss these. 5.3 From the information available at this stage we are of the opinion that a suitable footprint of around 10 x 7m should be capable of fitting between the remaining trees. A final design can be agreed in due course.
Page 17
5.4 Following recent discussions with Shire Structural Solutions, it has been suggested that fewer number, larger diameter mini-piles would be an effective solution to avoid the roots, thereby minimising damage to the mature trees. These piles would be positioned on site outwith locations which would compromise tree integrity. A reinforced concrete floor slab would span between ground beams, which would be designed to cantilever across the piles, facilitating changes to the pile setting-out on site. “Assuming a larger diameter pile supporting a flat RC slab (say with anti-heave measures) is proposed, this would result in minimal disturbance. However, when we are this close to trees and piling under the tree canopies, there is a risk of obstructions from roots. This may make it necessary to change the pile locations on site to avoid the larger roots, which may incur additional costs.” Darren Whitehouse, Shire-UK, 17.11.23 5.5 Exploring the use of a piled system, Shire Structural Solutions have provided the following. “Tracked rig specification attached, this is a mid-range sized rig, so could be a little bigger depending on the soils we are drilling into. Generally these rigs require around 2.4 to 2.9m head room to set up for the drilling. These rigs can be manoeuvred through properties so I don’t see there being a problem with access through the trees…” Darren Whitehouse, Shire-UK, 23.11.23 As discussed, drilling rig specification attached, of which it should be noted that this is capable of working within confined spaces. 5.6 To conclude the recent design review carried out, we are of the opinion that using a piled solution would allow the foundations to be carefully set out in a manner to avoid damaging any of the large trees and associated roots across the site. The method of using mini-piles would result in a lightly loaded rig with a low clearance height that would not breach the tree canopy.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
No embedded text on this page.
Page 20
16781 – Proposed dwellinghouse at East End, Lochwinnoch – Site photos 8 / 12 / 22 View along East End looking towards Johnshill ( Main Street ) View of possible development area with some trees felled in the distance
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
No embedded text on this page.
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
No embedded text on this page.
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
HLP-T5000-01 T5000, Auger Rig Hydraulic Large Plant HP-T5000 Tracked Auger Rig
Page 28
HLP-T5000-01 T5000, Auger Rig Plant No: HP-T5000 Supplier/Manufacturer: G P Services Seafire Works Henstridge Industrial Estate Henstridge Templecombe Somerset, BA8 0TN Tel: 01963 363866 (Dave in Sales) S/M Ref No: ce. 903906 Description: Tracked Auger Rig Can be used with different augers. Maintained By: Attachments: Big Hydraulic Power Pack Augers PPE: Standard Site PPE COSHH: Hydraulic Fluid Weight: 1350kg (rig only) Ancillaries 1.5m “Travel” hoses 10m Hoses (x4) [LP018] 25m Hoses (x4) [LP013]
Page 29
HLP-T5000-01 T5000, Auger Rig
Page 30
No embedded text on this page.
Page 31
No embedded text on this page.
Page 32
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 33
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 34
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 35
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 36
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 37
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 38
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 39
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 40
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 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
No embedded text on this page.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
No embedded text on this page.
Page 45
No embedded text on this page.
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
No embedded text on this page.
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
No embedded text on this page.
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
No embedded text on this page.
Page 52
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 53
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 54
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 55
Page 2 Tre works Plan
Page 56
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 57
Page 4
Page 58
Page 5
Page 59
Page 6
Page 60
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 61
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 62
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 63
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 64
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. Project Arboriculturist Christopher Calvey, Ayrshire Tree Surgeons Ltd North Hourat Farm, Kilbirnie, Ayrshire KA25 7LJ
Page 65
Page 12 Appendix 2: Planning Designations (Site in Red)
Page 66
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 67
38.5 38 38.5 38.5 38.5 37.5 37 36.5 36 E A S T E N D A A B B CARRIAGEWAYSITE CARRIAGEWAY SITE EAST END LOCHWINNOCH APPEAL APPLICATION No. 23/0179/PP SITE SECTION SECTION A-A (EAST GABLE) SECTION B-B (WEST GABLE)
Page 68
E A S T E N D EAST END LOCHWINNOCH APPEAL APPLICATION No. 23/0179/PP SUPPLEMENTARY PLANTING - PLAN EXISTING TREES WITHIN APPLICATION BOUNDARY LEGEND: SUPPLEMENTARY PLANTING (ARBORIST TO ADVISE SPECIES) SUPPLEMENTARY PLANTING OF TREES (ARBORIST TO ADVISE) AND SHRUBS.
Page 69
No embedded text on this page.
Page 70
No embedded text on this page.
Page 71
No embedded text on this page.
Page 72
No embedded text on this page.
Page 73
No embedded text on this page.
Page 74
No embedded text on this page.
Page 75
No embedded text on this page.
Page 76
No embedded text on this page.
Page 77
No embedded text on this page.
Page 78
No embedded text on this page.
Page 79
No embedded text on this page.
Page 80
No embedded text on this page.
Page 81
No embedded text on this page.
Page 82
No embedded text on this page.
Page 83
No embedded text on this page.
Page 84
No embedded text on this page.
Page 85
No embedded text on this page.
Page 86
No embedded text on this page.
Page 87
No embedded text on this page.
Page 88
No embedded text on this page.