Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 27/10/2025
South Lanarkshire Council · 27 October 2025
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 27 October 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA Friday, 17 October 2025 Dear Councillor Planning Local Review Body The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:- Date: Monday, 27 October 2025 Time: 10:30 Venue: Hybrid - Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf. Yours sincerely Paul Manning Chief Executive Members Richard Nelson (Chair), Gerry Convery (Depute Chair), Alex Allison, Colin Dewar, Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Cal Johnston-Dempsey, Lesley McDonald, Norman Rae, Graham Scott, David Shearer Substitutes Robert Brown, Maureen Devlin, Grant Ferguson, Alistair Fulton, Graeme Horne, Richard Lockhart, Ian McAllan, Kenny McCreary, Davie McLachlan 1
Page 2
BUSINESS 1 Declaration of Interests 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 15 September 2025 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 5 - 14 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case – Application P/24/1305 for Erection of Dwelling House (Accommodation for Farm Worker) at Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar Report dated 13 October 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 15 - 18 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/24/1305 19 - 38 3b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/24/1305 39 - 46 3c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Response P/24/1305 47 - 50 3d Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/24/1305 51 - 62 3e Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/24/1305 63 - 70 3f Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/24/1305 71 - 108 3g Appendix 6 Further Representation P/24/1305 109 - 116 3h Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representation P/24/1305 117 - 126 4 Review of Case – Application P/25/0470 for Erection of Two Storey Side Extension, First Floor Extension Above Garage and Associated Alterations at 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton Report dated 13 October 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 127 - 130 4a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/25/0470 131 - 138 4b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/25/0470 139 - 148 4c Appendix 2(b) Representations P/25/0470 149 - 156 4d Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/25/0470 157 - 164 4e Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/25/0470 165 - 172 4f Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/25/0470 173 - 192 4g Appendix 6 Further Representations P/25/0470 193 - 200 4h Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representations P/25/0470 201 - 204 2
Page 3
Urgent Business 5 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Stuart McLeod Clerk Telephone: 07385 370 117 Clerk Email: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of meeting held via Confero and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 15 September 2025 Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Colin Dewar, Councillor Lesley McDonald, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Graham Scott, Councillor David Shearer Councillors' Apologies: Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Councillor Cal Johnston-Dempsey Attending: Community and Enterprise Resources T Finn, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources S Jessup, Administration Assistant; D McLardy, Legal Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body; S McLeod, Administration Officer 1 Declaration of Interests No interests were declared. 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 18 August 2025 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The PLRB decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 3 Review of Case – Application P/25/0258 for Erection of 3 Dwelling Houses Within Existing Garden Ground and Formation of Access (Planning Permission in Principle) at 30 Carnwath Road, Braehead, Lanark A report dated 4 September 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/25/0258 by A Taylor for the erection of 3 dwelling houses within existing garden ground and formation of access (planning permission in principle) at 30 Carnwath Road, Braehead, Lanark. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submissions from an interested party and Planning Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case 2 5
Page 6
The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application under review. In reviewing the case, the PLRB considered the information submitted by all parties. Following its review of the information, the PLRB concluded that there was no valid policy justification to support the erection of 3 dwelling houses within existing garden ground and formation of access (planning permission in principle) at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 15 May 2025. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/25/0258 by A Taylor for the erection of 3 dwelling houses within existing garden ground and formation of access (planning permission in principle) at 30 Carnwath Road, Braehead, Lanark be upheld. 4 Review of Case – Application P/25/0082 for Formation of New Vehicular Access from A73 to Replace 2 Existing Ones at Land 490 Metres Southeast of Marchburn, Lanark Road, Lanark A report dated 4 September 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/25/0082 by F Smith for the formation of a new vehicular access from the A73 to replace 2 existing ones at land 490 metres southeast of Marchburn, Lanark Road, Lanark. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and a response from a consultee site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submissions from an interested party following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the further submission received from an interested party The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application under review. In reviewing the case, the PLRB considered the information submitted by all parties. 6
Page 7
Following its review of the information, the PLRB concluded that there was no valid policy justification to support the formation of a new vehicular access from the A73 to replace 2 existing ones at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 11 April 2025. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/25/0082 by F Smith for the formation of a new vehicular access from the A73 to replace 2 existing ones at land 490 metres southeast of Marchburn, Lanark Road, Lanark be upheld. 5 Review of Case – Application P/25/0101 for Erection of 26 Dwelling Houses, Associated Access Road, Noise Bund with Fence, Suds Pond, Landscaping and Associated Works at Land 85 Metres South of 51 Brocketsbrae Road, Brocketsbrae Road, Lesmahagow, Lanark A report dated 4 September 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/25/0101 by Modern Housing Limited for the erection of 26 dwelling houses, associated access road, noise bund with fence, suds pond, landscaping and associated works at land 85 metres south of 51 Brocketsbrae Road, Brocketsbrae Road, Lesmahagow, Lanark. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the further submission received from Planning and Regulatory Services The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The Planning Adviser advised as follows on a procedural matter:- the application site had been the subject of 2 previous planning consents:- P/19/1802 for the erection of 26 dwelling houses, associated access road, noise bund with fence, suds pond, open space and landscaping P/24/0529 for the erection of 25 dwelling houses, associated access road, noise bund with fence, suds pond, open space and landscaping (variation to P/19/1802 as approved including layout, siting and design and a reduction in house plots) both of the previous consents had been subject to legal agreements to address the impact of the development on infrastructure on educational and community facilities and for the provision of affordable housing the submission from Planning and Regulatory Services stated that, in the event that the PLRB decided to reverse the decision to refuse the application, a legal agreement would require to be concluded prior to issuing the decision notice 7
Page 8
the applicant had submitted a solicitor’s letter stating that no new Section 75 agreement would be required as an existing agreement was already in place on the basis that the application under review was for a different number of houses to the previous consent and the circumstances relating to the education contribution had since changed, a new Section 75 agreement would be required if planning permission was granted The PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application under review. In reviewing the case, the PLRB considered the information submitted by all parties. Following its review of the information and after discussion, the PLRB considered whether there was valid policy justification to support the planning application for the erection of 26 dwelling houses, associated access road, noise bund with fence, suds pond, landscaping and associated works at the proposed location and concluded that there was adequate policy justification for the application to be granted subject to conditions and a Section 75 agreement, on the grounds that the proposal complied with the relevant policies in the local development plan, ie National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2). It was noted that the Council’s Administration and Legal Services would be instructed to conclude and register a Section 75 agreement, following which, a decision notice would be issued to the applicant. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/25/0101 by Modern Housing Limited for the erection of 26 dwelling houses, associated access road, noise bund with fence, suds pond, landscaping and associated works at land 85 metres south of 51 Brocketsbrae Road, Brocketsbrae Road, Lesmahagow, Lanark be reversed and that planning permission be granted subject to:- the conditions attached as Appendix 1 to this minute the conclusion of a Section 75 agreement and/or other appropriate agreement between the Council, site owner(s) and the applicant to ensure appropriate financial contributions were made to address the impact of the development on infrastructure on educational and community facilities and for the provision of affordable housing In terms of Standing Order No 14, the Chair adjourned the meeting during this item of business at 11.00am and reconvened at 11.10am 6 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 8
Page 9
Application P/25/0101 – Draft Conditions and Reasons Erection of 26 dwelling houses, associated access road, noise bund with fence, suds pond, landscaping and associated works at land 85 metres south of 51 Brocketsbrae Road, Brocketsbrae Road, Lesmahagow, Lanark 01. That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and shall include signed appendices as required. Thereafter the development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the disposal of surface water from the site is dealt with in a safe and sustainable manner, to return it to the natural water cycle with minimal adverse impact on people and the environment and to alleviate the potential for on-site and off-site flooding. 02. That no development shall commence on site until the applicant provides written confirmation from Scottish Water or SEPA to the Council as Planning Authority that the site can be satisfactorily served by a sewerage scheme designed in accordance with their standards. Reason: To ensure the provision of a satisfactory sewerage system. 03. That prior to any work starting on site, a Drainage Assessment in accordance with 'Drainage Assessment - A Guide for Scotland', shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning and Roads Authority. Reason: To demonstrate that a satisfactory means of waste and surface water drainage can be achieved. 04. That no development or ground works shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Reason: In order to safeguard any archaeological items of interest or finds. 05. That before any work commences on the site, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for written approval and it shall include:- (a) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows plus details of those to be retained and measures for their protection in the course of development; (b) details and specification of all trees, shrubs, grass mix, etc., including, where appropriate, the planting of fruit/apple trees; (c) details of any top-soiling or other treatment to the ground; (d) sections and other necessary details of any mounding, earthworks and hard landscaping; (e) proposals for the initial and future maintenance of the landscaped areas; (f) details of the phasing of these works; and no work shall be undertaken on the site until approval has been given to these details. 9
Page 10
Reason: To ensure the appropriate provision of landscaping within the site. 06. That the approved landscaping scheme shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority during the first available planting season following occupation of the building(s) or completion of the development hereby approved, whichever is the sooner. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 07. The proposed bund along the southwestern boundary of the site shall be so constructed to leave a minimum of 1 metre level access between the bund and the existing boundary fence with the M74. Reason: To keep the existing access provision to both sides of the fence to allow the Roads Authority to maintain the existing fencing along the motorway. 08. That prior to the commencement of the proposed development, details of the proposed drainage connections and supporting calculations shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. The proposed drainage calculations shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and calculations. Reason: To ensure that the efficiency of the existing drainage network is not affected. 09. That before any development commences on site or before any materials are ordered or brought to the site, details and samples of all materials to be used as external finishes on the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactory in appearance and to maintain the visual quality of the area. 10. That before each dwelling is completed or brought into use, all of the parking spaces shown on the approved plans for that dwelling shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained to the specification of the Council as Roads Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities for each dwelling within the site. 11. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 90 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided on both sides of new vehicular access into the site and everything exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.9 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. 12. The localised road widening as shown on the approved plans and traffic calming measures along Brocketsbrae Road shall be implemented to a suitable standard prior to occupation of the first dwelling on site and shall be fully completed and surfaces finished to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning and Roads Authority prior to the last dwelling hereby approved is occupied. Details of the proposed traffic calming along Brocketsbrae Road shall be submitted prior to development starting on site. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. 10
Page 11
13. That prior to development starting on site the developer shall submit a site development traffic management plan. This will provide details on construction vehicles and staff parking, compound facilities, construction/delivery routes, wheel wash facilities and road sweeping plans etc. Reason: To ensure adequate traffic management and road cleaning arrangements are put in place to minimise disturbance to neighbouring properties and in the interest of traffic and public safety. 14. That, unless otherwise agreed in writing and prior to works commencing on site, the applicant shall submit details to demonstrate each dwelling has access to its own electric vehicle charging (EVC) point. Where parking is provided within a shared courtyard, details shall also include arrangements for siting of charging posts taking account of parking bays/boundary features/pedestrian movement along with maintenance arrangements all for the written approval of the Council as Roads Authority. Thereafter, the agreed EVC provision shall be installed, commissioned, and maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications prior to that property which it serves being occupied. Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate facilities on site. 15. That the first 4 metres of the driveways fronting onto Brocketsbrae (measured from the edge of carriageway) must be surfaced, trapped and sealed to prevent any deleterious materials or water from leaving the driveway and entering the public road. Within this 4 metres, a delineation flush kerb must be installed and located 2 metres from the edge of the carriageway to delineate the public road / service strip from the private driveway. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and to prevent deleterious material from running onto or entering the road. 16. The housing developer shall ensure that (prior to the development becoming occupied) the neighbourhood noise levels primarily from road traffic comply with the following:- Part 1 The internal noise levels shall comply with BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings as follows:- a) The internal levels with windows open (or under exceptional circumstances closed) do not exceed an LAeq,16hr of 40dB daytime (07:00 - 23:00) b) The internal levels with windows open (or under exceptional circumstances closed) do not exceed an LAeq,8hr of 30dB night-time (23:00 - 07:00) c) The internal levels with windows open (or under exceptional circumstances closed) do not exceed an LAmax of 45dB night-time (23:00 - 07:00) d) The external levels shall not exceed an LAeq,16hr of 55dB daytime in any garden amenity areas, when measured free-field Part 2 The Internal Noise Rating Values, within the residential property shall not exceed:- NR25 between 23.00hrs and 08.00hrs NR35 between 08.00hrs and 23.00hrs Reason: To ensure the noise levels within the new dwellings are at an acceptable level to protect residential amenity. 11
Page 12
17. A bund/barrier consistent with that shown on approved plan MH-H-02-SL-01J site plan as proposed within the context of document R21.10917/1/Let3 as it amends Assessment (NIA) report (Reference: R21.10917-1-IK) shall be constructed and thereafter maintained. The details of the construction, surface density of materials and final positioning shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. In addition, the submitted details shall include the planned maintenance of the bund and fencing for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure the noise bund and fence are constructed to and maintained to an acceptable level for the lifetime of the dwellings hereby approved by this consent. 18. An updated Noise Impact Assessment shall be provided on a Plot-by-Plot basis to demonstrate the noise levels as follows:- A dedicated external area shall be provided capable of meeting the WHO community noise guidance level of an LAeq,16hr of 55dB daytime in the garden amenity areas. This may include the inclusion of localised screening such as a garden structure etc. providing an acoustic shadow capable of providing the additional insertion loss as required. The final details shall be submitted to and approved by the Panning Authority. This shall include the provisions within R21.10917/1/Let3 as it amends Assessment (NIA) report (Reference: R21.10917-1-IK). For the avoidance of doubt, the above shall be provided with direct association to the updated site plan Modern Housing Drawing, Brocketsbrae Site Plan as proposed as submitted within the current application. Reason: To ensure each dwelling has some private garden area with acceptable levels of amenity in relation to background noise. 19. For those most exposed facades requiring a closed window scheme to meet BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction, the final glazing and ventilation specification and proposed combined sound reduction shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. It shall also be demonstrated that the optimal reduction with windows partially open has been installed with cognisance to NANR116: ‘Open/Closed Window Research’ Sound insulation through ventilated domestic Windows as prepared by Napier University. This may require modified windows and openable areas on exposed facades. This shall include:- The provisions within R21.10917/1/Let 3 as it amends Assessment (NIA) report (Reference: R21.10917-1-IK) Direct association to the updated site plan Modern Housing Drawing, Brocketsbrae Site Plan as proposed as submitted within the current application Reason: To ensure adequate levels of amenity are achieved for each dwelling on the site. 20. Details of facilities for the storage of refuse within the proposed development, including the design, location and access for uplift, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the facilities for the storage of waste have been provided within the proposed development, in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made within the development for the storage and collection of residential waste. 12
Page 13
21. Prior to development commencing on site, a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No changes to the approved scheme shall take place unless agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the risk of nuisance from dust to nearby occupants. 22. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011 (or any such order revoking or re-enacting that order), no fencing or walls shall be erected within the front garden areas of the dwellings fronting onto Brocketsbrae Road (plots 1 to 11); without the submission of a further planning application to the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the Council retains effective control over future development of boundary treatments onto the public road to retain the character of the streetscape. 23. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details of measures to facilitate the provision of full fibre broadband to serve the development, including details of appropriate digital infrastructure and a timescale for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the applicant. The approved measures shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed implementation timescale. Reason: To ensure the provision of digital infrastructure to serve the development. 24. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of grant of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). 13
Page 14
14
Page 15
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 27 October 2025 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/24/1305 for Erection of Dwelling House (Accommodation for Farm Worker) at Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to present the information currently available to allow a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, on the following application:- [purpose] 1.2. Summary Application Information Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Ms Woodside Proposal: Erection of dwelling house (accommodation for farm worker) Location: Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar, ML12 6JJ Council Area/Ward: 03 – Clydesdale East 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review [1recs] 3 15
Page 16
3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision. 3.2. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where an application for planning permission relates to a proposal that falls within the category of “local development” and has been or could have been determined under the Scheme of Delegation, the applicant is entitled to request that the determination be reviewed by the Planning Local Review Body. 4. Notice of Review – Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review 4.1. In submitting their Notice of Review, the applicant has stated their reasons for requiring a review of the determination in respect of their application. (Refer Appendix 5) 4.2. The applicant is entitled to state a preference for procedure (or combination of procedures) to be followed and has indicated that their stated preference is as follows:- Further written submissions Site inspection Hearing session(s) X Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure 4.3. However, members will be aware that it is for the Planning Local Review Body to determine how a case is reviewed. 5. Information Available to Allow Review of Application 5.1. Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 restricts the ability of parties to introduce new matters at the review stage. The focus of the review should, therefore, be on the material which was before the officer who dealt with the application under the Scheme of Delegation. 5.2. The following information is appended to this report to assist the Planning Local Review Body in its review of the decision taken by officers:- Planning Application Form (Appendix 1) Report of Handling by the Planning Officer under the Scheme of Delegation (Appendix 2(a)) Copy of consultee response (Appendix 2(b)) Site photographs and location plan (Appendix 3) Decision notice (Appendix 4) Notice of Review including statement of reasons for requiring the review (Appendix 5) 5.3. Copies of the relevant drawings are available for inspection by contacting Administration and Legal Services prior to the meeting. 16
Page 17
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 1 further representation was received, a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. This is attached as Appendix 6. 6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representation received. Comments from the applicant’s agent are contained in the submission attached as Appendix 7. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 13 October 2025 Link(s) to Council Values/Ambitions/Objectives Work with communities and partners to promote high quality, thriving and sustainable communities Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References None List of Background Papers Guide to the Planning Local Review Body Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Stuart McLeod, Administration Officer Tel: 07385 370 117 E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 17
Page 18
18
Page 19
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 19
Page 20
20
Page 21
Page 1 of 8 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.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 100689706-001 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 Proposed construction of new dwelling 3a 21
Page 22
22
Page 23
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 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 descr be 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. BOGHALL FARM 1700.00 Agricultural land South Lanarkshire Council BOGHALL ROAD BIGGAR ML12 6JJ 637089 303856 23
Page 24
24
Page 25
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. bins shown on site plan 1 25
Page 26
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 Do you have any agricultural tenants? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate E Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate E I hereby certify that – (1) – No person other than myself/the applicant was the owner of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period 21 days ending with the date of the application. (2) - The land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding and there are no agricultural tenants Or (1) – No person other than myself/the applicant was the owner of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period 21 days ending with the date of the application. (2) - The land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding and there are agricultural tenants. Name: Address: Date of Service of Notice: * 26
Page 27
Page 7 of 8 (4) – I have/The applicant has taken reasonable steps, as listed below, to ascertain the names and addresses of the other owners or agricultural tenants and *have/has been unable to do so – Signed: David Graham On behalf of: MS Woodside Date: 24/10/2024 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * 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 27
Page 28
Page 8 of 8 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) 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 David Graham Declaration Date: 24/10/2024 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 24/10/2024 13:58 Supporting statement 28
Page 29
Page 1 of 3 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.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 100689706-002 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. 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 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 BOGHALL FARM South Lanarkshire Council BOGHALL ROAD BIGGAR ML12 6JJ 637089 303856 29
Page 30
Page 2 of 3 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: * Burrell Design Studio David Graham Silvermuir Holding Boghall Road 4 Boghall farm ML11 7SD ML12 6JJ United Kingdom Scotland Lanark Biggar Ravenstruther burrelldesignstudio@gmail.com burrelldesignstudio@gmail.com MS Woodside &Co 30
Page 31
Page 3 of 3 Proposal/Application Details Please provide the details of the original application(s) below: Was the original application part of this proposal? * Yes No Application Details Please select which application(s) the new documentation is related to. Application: * Document Details Please provide an explanation as to why the documentation is being attached after the original application was submitted: * (Max 500 characters) Checklist – Post Submission Additional Documentation Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. The additional documents have been attached to this submission. * Yes No Declare – Post Submission Additional Documentation I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is a submission of Additional Documentation, and that all the information given in this submission is true to the best of my/the applicants knowledge. Declaration Name: Mr David Graham Declaration Date: 16/12/2024 100689706-001, application for Planning Permission, submitted on 24/10/2024 revised site plan with rotated house position 31
Page 32
Page 1 of 3 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.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 100689706-003 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. 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 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 BOGHALL FARM South Lanarkshire Council BOGHALL ROAD BIGGAR ML12 6JJ 637089 303856 32
Page 33
Page 2 of 3 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: * Burrell Design Studio David Graham Silvermuir Holding Boghall Road 4 Boghall farm ML11 7SD ML12 6JJ United Kingdom Scotland Lanark Biggar Ravenstruther burrelldesignstudio@gmail.com burrelldesignstudio@gmail.com MS Woodside &Co 33
Page 34
Page 3 of 3 Proposal/Application Details Please provide the details of the original application(s) below: Was the original application part of this proposal? * Yes No Application Details Please select which application(s) the new documentation is related to. Application: * Document Details Please provide an explanation as to why the documentation is being attached after the original application was submitted: * (Max 500 characters) Checklist – Post Submission Additional Documentation Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. The additional documents have been attached to this submission. * Yes No Declare – Post Submission Additional Documentation I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is a submission of Additional Documentation, and that all the information given in this submission is true to the best of my/the applicants knowledge. Declaration Name: Mr David Graham Declaration Date: 16/12/2024 100689706-001, application for Planning Permission, submitted on 24/10/2024 revised drawings showing mullions and slate roof finish 34
Page 35
Page 1 of 3 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.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 100689706-004 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. 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 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 BOGHALL FARM South Lanarkshire Council BOGHALL ROAD BIGGAR ML12 6JJ 637089 303856 35
Page 36
Page 2 of 3 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: * Burrell Design Studio David Graham Silvermuir Holding Boghall Road 4 Boghall farm ML11 7SD ML12 6JJ United Kingdom Scotland Lanark Biggar Ravenstruther burrelldesignstudio@gmail.com burrelldesignstudio@gmail.com MS Woodside &Co 36
Page 37
Page 3 of 3 Proposal/Application Details Please provide the details of the original application(s) below: Was the original application part of this proposal? * Yes No Application Details Please select which application(s) the new documentation is related to. Application: * Document Details Please provide an explanation as to why the documentation is being attached after the original application was submitted: * (Max 500 characters) Checklist – Post Submission Additional Documentation Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. The additional documents have been attached to this submission. * Yes No Declare – Post Submission Additional Documentation I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is a submission of Additional Documentation, and that all the information given in this submission is true to the best of my/the applicants knowledge. Declaration Name: Mr David Graham Declaration Date: 16/12/2024 100689706-001, application for Planning Permission, submitted on 24/10/2024 revised drawings showing altered design appearance 37
Page 38
38
Page 39
Report of Handling Report dated 2 July 2025 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 3b 39
Page 40
40
Page 41
Reference no. P/24/1305 Delegated Report Date 25 June 2025 Planning proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker) Location: Boghall Farm Boghall Road Biggar ML12 6JJ Application Type : Detailed planning application Applicant : Ms Woodside Location : Boghall Farm Boghall Road Biggar ML12 6JJ Decision: Other action/notes: Application refused (1) Report by: Area Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: National Planning Framework 4 NPF4: Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises NPF4: Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation NPF4: Policy 3 Biodiversity NPF4: Policy 4 Natural places NPF4: Policy 5 Soils NPF4: Policy 14 Design, quality and place NPF4: Policy 15 Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods NPF4: Policy 16 Quality homes NPF4: Policy 17 Rural homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) SLDP2: Policy 2 Climate change SLDP2: Policy 4 Green Belt and Rural Area SLDP2: Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking SLDP2: Policy GBRA1 Rural Design and Development SLDP2: Policy GBR10 Accommodation associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business SLDP2: Policy NHE10 Prime Agricultural Land SLDP2: Policy NHE16 Landscape Assessment Impact on privacy? No Impact on sunlight/daylight? No Impact on amenity? Yes 3b 41
Page 42
Traffic issues? No Adheres to development plan policy? No Adverse comments from consultees? No Consultations Summary of response Roads Flood Risk Management Countryside And Greenspace SP Energy Network Roads Development Management Team SEPA West Region Representation(s): ► 0 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 42
Page 43
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The application site is located adjacent to Boghall Farm, Biggar and fronts onto Boghall Road. The site is relatively level and consists of grassland enclosed by a combination of post and wire fencing and a stone wall. The site is located a short distance from Biggar and Boghall farm is conterminous with the Biggar settlement boundary. 1.2 The proposal is for a 1.5 storey detached dwelling with associated access and double garage with storage above. It is proposed as a home for a farm worker associated with Boghall Farm. 1.3 The proposed house would contain 3 bedrooms, an open plan living room/kitchen, a separate lounge, utility room, study in addition to the double garage. Off-street parking would be provided to the front of the house, with direct access from Boghall Road. The dwelling would have a pitched roof finished in slate and smooth white render walls. 1.4 Boghall Farm consists of a traditional stone farmhouse with farm related building to the rear. There is a second building that has been converted into a residential property, currently used as a short-term let. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 None. 3 Assessment and Conclusions 3.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Climate Change 3.2 NPF4 Policy 1, NPF4 Policy 2 and SLLDP2 Policy 2 aim to ensure that proposals for new development must, where possible, seek to minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change. 3.3 There is no evidence to suggest that the site is affected by flooding. If the decision had been to approve, conditions could have been attached requiring tree planting and the installation of an electric vehicle charging point. Overall, the proposal does not compromise the objectives of NPF4 Policy 1 and 2 and SLLDP Policy 2. Principal of Development 3.4 NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes aims to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of high quality, affordable homes in the right location. The policy advises the NPF4 supports new homes in the rural area where the development is suitable scaled, sited and designed and (using the only applicable criteria under (17a) v for this proposal) where it is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business, and there is an essential need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work. 3.5 The proposal is for a farm worker and it has been demonstrated that Boghall Farm is a livestock farm. Information has been provide to support the application and demonstrate that it relates to a viable farm business. It should be noted that, in order to demonstrate 43
Page 44
viability, this information does include reference to the operation of the short-term let from Boghall Farm. 3.6 Boghall Farm is located adjacent to Biggar and is a short distance from the town centre and easily accessible either on foot or by vehicular transport. The online advertisement for the short-term let on site specifically highlights the proximity of the site to Biggar. Whilst it is reasonable to consider the accompanying reports and the demonstration of the need for an additional worker, it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near the farm. The farm is only a few minutes walk from much of Biggar and this accessibility would offer a clear opportunity for a worker to live nearby rather than actually on the farm. 3.7 Due to the operation of the short-term let, there are already two dwellings on site. There are also ruined buildings which could potentially be converted or redeveloped which have not been fully considered. Reference has also been made to the current situation whereby when required, additional workers from the surrounding area are utilised. This suggests that the farm is readily accessible and that there is little justification for an additional property in the manner proposed. Therefore, the proposal is not fully compliant with NPF4 Policy 17. 3.8 NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of high quality homes, in the right locations. It advises that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the local development plan will only be supported in limited circumstances, in rural locations, the proposal must be consistent with the policy on rural homes. In this case, the proposal does not comply with relevant policies on rural homes and therefore contravenes NPF4 Policy 16. 3.9 Policy 4 ‘Green Belt and Rural Area’ of the SLLDP2 specifies that within the Rural Area, the aim is to protect the amenity of the countryside while at the same time, supporting small scale development in the right places that is appropriate in land use terms and is of a high environmental quality that will support the needs of communities. It functions primarily for agriculture, forestry, recreation, and other uses appropriate to the countryside. Development which does not need to be in the countryside will be expected to be accommodated within the settlements identified on the proposals map. Isolated and sporadic development will not be supported. 3.10 The proposed dwelling is linked to an appropriate rural business, however, as it has not been established that there is a specific locational requirement, the proposal contravenes Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Layout, siting and Design 3.11 NPF4 Policy 14 Design Quality and Place and SLLDP2 Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking and Policy GBRA1 Rural Design and Development aim to ensure well designed development that makes for successful places and considers the impact on residential amenity and the appropriateness of the development to a rural setting. Proposed developments shall be well related to locally traditional patterns and scale and shall avoid the introduction of suburban-style developments into the rural environment. Proposals specifically for residential development should not be isolated or sporadic. 3.12 Improvements have been made to the appearance of the proposed dwelling, including the use of a slate roof. However, the external walls are to be finished in smooth white render which does not reflect the characteristics of the neighbouring farmhouse or the traditional properties within Biggar. The proposed development of a new dwelling in the rural area, contrary to policies designed to preserve that rural area from housing in inappropriate locations and promote compact urban growth, is not considered to be characteristic of a 44
Page 45
liveable place. The design of the dwelling has suburban elements, inappropriate for a rural area. On this basis, it is considered that the application proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 and SLLDP2 Policies 5 and GBRA1. 3.13 The site is within walking distance of the town centre and would therefore comply with Policy 15 regarding local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. Conclusion 3.14 It is not considered that there is sufficient justification for a dwelling at this location. The farm is directly adjacent to Biggar and already recruits additional labour when necessary without the need for an additional dwelling on site. The external finishing materials, consisting of white render, are inappropriate for a rural location as it has a suburban appearance, countering local and national objectives to improve design quality in the countryside. 3.15 The introduction of a suburban style house in a prominent location would erode the rural character of the area and there is not a sufficient need for a farm workers dwelling as proposed. In summary, the proposed development fails to adhere to the provisions of the development plan, with specific regard to Policies 14, 16 and 17 of NPF4 (adopted 2023) and Policies 4, 5, GBRA1 and GBRA10 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) and there are no material considerations which would outweigh this variance with the development plan. In view of this, it is considered that the application be refused planning permission. 4 Reason for decision Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:- 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would constitute an inappropriate form of development, without appropriate justification. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking) and GBRA1 (Rural Design and Development) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would constitute an inappropriate form of development, without appropriate justification, which would exacerbate the impression of suburbanisation at this location, leading to further erosion of the rural character. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy GBRA10 (Accommodation Associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed dwelling is not of a satisfactory design with regard to finishing materials and there are other properties within the farm which could be used to provide additional farm worker accommodation. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 - Design, Quality and Place of National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 16 - Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal is not consistent with the policy on rural homes. 06. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 17 - Rural homes of National Planning Framework 4 as it has not been demonstrated that it is essential for an additional farm worker to be live permanently on the farm. 45
Page 46
Delegating officer: David Russell Date: 02 July 2025 Previous references None List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 31.10.2024 ► Consultations Roads Flood Risk Management Countryside And Greenspace SP Energy Network Roads Development Management Team 22.11.2024 SEPA West Region ► Representations Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Bernard Darroch, Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: Email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 46
Page 47
Consultation Response Response dated 22 November 2024 from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Appendix 2(b) 3c 47
Page 48
48
Page 49
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Roads and Transportation Services – Transportation Engineering Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Email: enterprise.hq@southlanarkshire.gov.uk To: Planning and Regulatory Services Planning Application No: P/24/1305 Case Officer: Ian Hamilton From: Development Management Roads and Transportation Services Contact: Jill Davies Date: 22 November 2024 Subject: OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION P/24/1305 Location: Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar, ML12 6JJ I refer to the above planning application and would respond as follows. This application is for the erection of detached dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker). This consists of a three bedroom dwelling with a detached garage, car parking and turning area provided as per submitted drawing No: 1280-01. Access would be taken onto Boghall Road within the derestriction area, the required visibility splay of 2.5m x 215m should be provided, however this cannot be achieved at this location. The applicant shows visibility splays of 2.5 x 180m in both directions, which would be achievable and acceptable in this instance as the new access is within 100 metres of the existing 30mph speed limit. A 2m verge should be provided along the frontage of the development. The parking requirements for the 3 bedroom dwelling is 2 car parking spaces. There is a requirement to install an electric vehicle charging point within the driveway. A road opening permit from the roads area office will also be required. In conclusion, this service would raise no objections subject to the following conditions being applied. • A dropped kerb verge crossing should be installed with a kerb at the rear of the verge to delineate the public road, this would require the access to be surfaced with bituminous material for at least six metres to prevent any deleterious material being discharged onto the public road. As per submitted drawing No: 1280-01 Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. • That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a 2 metre verge to be provided along the entire frontage of the site. • That before the development is brought into use, three parking spaces (6m x 3m modules) shall be provided. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site. 3c 49
Page 50
• That before the development is completed or brought into use, the first six metres of the driveway shall be so trapped and finished in hardstanding as to prevent any surface water or deleterious material from running onto or entering the road. • Appropriate cleaning systems should be put in place within the site to ensure mud and debris is not deposited on the public road. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. • That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, an electric vehicle charging point should be installed. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. 50
Page 51
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3d 51
Page 52
52
Page 53
3d 53
Page 54
Photo 1 looking east across site 54
Page 55
Photo 2 looking west to Biggar 55
Page 56
Photo 3 looking northeast within entrance to farm 56
Page 57
Photo 4 looking southwest 57
Page 58
Photo 5 looking northeast towards farm 58
Page 59
Photo 6 looking southeast across site 59
Page 60
Photo 7 looking south along Boghall Road 60
Page 61
Photo 8 looking north along Boghall Road towards Biggar 61
Page 62
62
Page 63
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3e 63
Page 64
64
Page 65
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email Ian.hamilton@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services David Graham Burrell Design Studio 4 Silvermuir Holding Ravenstruther Lanark ML11 7SD Our Ref: P/24/1305 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Ian Hamilton Date: 11 July 2025 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker) Site address: Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar, ML12 6JJ, Application no: P/24/1305 I would advise you that the above application was refused by the Council and I enclose the decision notice which sets out the reasons for refusal. Please note that the Council does not issue paper plans with the decision notice. The application is refused in accordance with the plans and any other documentation listed in the reasons for refusal imposed on the accompanying decision notice and which can be viewed using the Council’s online planning application search at https://publicaccess.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/online-applications/ If you consider that you can overcome the reasons for refusal and that it is not the principle of the development that is unacceptable, you may submit an amended application. If you do amend your proposals and re-apply within one year of this refusal, then you will not have to pay a fee, provided the proposal is of the same character or description as the application which has just been refused. As your application has been refused, you may appeal against the decision within 3 months of the date of the decision notice. The attached notes explain how you may appeal. Should you have any enquiries relating to the refusal of your application or a potential amended submission, please contact Ian Hamilton on Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 3e 65
Page 66
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: MS Woodside Per: David Graham Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar, ML12 6JJ, 4 Silvermuir Holding , Ravenstruther, Lanark, ML11 7SD, With reference to your application received on 24.10.2024 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker) Site location: Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar, ML12 6JJ, SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the above development in accordance with the plan(s) specified in this decision notice and the particulars given in the application, for the reason(s) listed overleaf in the paper apart. Date: 11th July 2025 Head of Planning and Regulatory Services This permission does not grant any consent for the development that may be required under other legislation, e.g. Building Warrant or Roads Construction Consent. South Lanarkshire Council Community and Enterprise Resources Planning and Regulatory Services Application no. P/24/1305 66
Page 67
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/24/1305 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would constitute an inappropriate form of development, without appropriate justification. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking) and GBRA1 (Rural Design and Development) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would constitute an inappropriate form of development, without appropriate justification, which would exacerbate the impression of suburbanisation at this location, leading to further erosion of the rural character. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy GBRA10 (Accommodation Associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed dwelling is not of a satisfactory design with regard to finishing materials and there are other properties within the farm which could be used to provide additional farm worker accommodation. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 - Design, Quality and Place of National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 16 - Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal is not consistent with the policy on rural homes. 06. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 17 - Rural homes of National Planning Framework 4 as it has not been demonstrated that it is essential for an additional farm worker to be live permanently on the farm. Reason(s) for decision 67
Page 68
Notes to applicant Application number: P/24/1305 Important The following notes do not form a statutory part of this decision notice. However, it is recommended that you study them closely as they contain other relevant information. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status 1280-01 B Refused 1280-02 B Refused 1280-03 B Refused 68
Page 69
Important notes Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 1. Compliance with conditions Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (Section 145), failure to comply with any condition(s) imposed on any planning permission may result in the service by the Council of a “Breach of Condition Notice” requiring compliance with the said condition(s). There is no right of appeal against such a Notice and failure to comply with the terms of the Notice within the specified time limit will constitute a summary offence, liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1000. 2. Procedure for appeal to the planning authority (a) If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the planning authority 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 (Scotland) Act 1997, within three months from the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Administration and Legal Services Council Headquarters Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA To obtain the appropriate forms: Administration and Legal Services at the above address. Telephone: 07385 370 117 E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk (b) If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions, whether by the planning authority or by the Scottish Ministers, 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 incapable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, he may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of his interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 69
Page 70
70
Page 71
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant MS Woodside Appendix 5 3f 71
Page 72
72
Page 73
Page 1 of 5 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.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 100720508-001 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. 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 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 Gainford Planning Neil Gainford Woodlands Drive 8 ML11 9FS United Kingdom Lanark 3f 73
Page 74
Page 2 of 5 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: * 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 Mr BOGHALL FARM M ke South Lanarkshire Council Woodside BOGHALL ROAD Boghall Road Boghall Farm BIGGAR ML12 6JJ ML12 6JJ United Kingdom 637089 Biggar 303856 74
Page 75
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unl kely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. 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 the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of Dwellinghouse (Accommodation for Farm Worker) See attached Statement of Case 75
Page 76
Page 4 of 5 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. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * 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. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: 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. 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. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) 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 (if any) from the earlier consent. Statement of Case P24/1305 11/07/2025 24/10/2024 76
Page 77
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Neil Gainford Declaration Date: 25/07/2025 Payment Details Online payment: Payment date: 25/07/2025 15:05:00 Created: 25/07/2025 15:05 77
Page 78
78
Page 79
Page 1: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar Notice of Review of the Decision By South Lanarkshire Council to Refuse Detailed Planning Permission in Respect of Planning Application Ref: P/24/1305 APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF CASE Above: Review Site at Boghall Farm Erection of Dwellinghouse (Accommodation for Farm Worker) At Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar ML12 6JJ 79
Page 80
Page 2: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Preliminary Matters KEY ISSUE FOR THE PLRB • The Planners’ Decision was UNLAWFUL • Any Decision by the PLRB to Uphold the Planners’ Decision would also be UNLAWFUL and would be Open to Judicial Review by the Court of Session 3. Grounds of Appeal to the Planning Local Review Body SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR THE PLRB • Council Officers’ failure to consider all relevant policies constitutes “unreasonable behaviour” on behalf of the Council and could also render the decision UNLAWFUL • Council Officers’ failure to consider relevant material considerations including recent decisions by the Planning Committee results in INCONSISTENT decision-making Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal Reason No.1: Policy 4 of SLLDP2 Reason No. 2: Policy 5, and Policy GBRA1 of SLLDP2 Reason No. 3: Policy GBRA10 of SLLDP2 Reason No. 4: Policy 14 of NPF4 Reason No. 5: Policy 16 of NPF4 Reason No. 6: Policy 17 of NPF4 4. Summary The Planning Officer’s Decision is: • Unlawful • Unsound • Unreasonable • Unjustified • Inconsistent 80
Page 81
Page 3: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background to the Application 1.1 The appellants, Mike and Julie Woodside have farmed Boghall Farm for the last 27 years. In anticipation of their retirement, they wish to make arrangements for their son to take over the management of the farm. 1.2 Mike and Julie’s son, Greg, lives remote from the farm with his first child expected in December this year. There is no suitable accommodation on the farm, which could accommodate Greg’s growing family. The proposed house would enable Greg to live on-site and manage the future operation of the farm when his father retires. 1.3 The planning officer’s Delegated Report makes no reference to key facts relevant to this proposal. Rather than rehearse the full details relevant to this Review, the appellants invite Members of the PLRB to note in particular the following specific facts which are omitted from the officer’s Delegated Report. • The justification for the proposal is contained in a Supporting Statement which was lodged with the application. The Delegated Report makes no reference to the matters contained in the Supporting Statement. The Supporting Statement in turn refers to a Labour Requirement Report prepared by Scottish Agricultural College Consulting (SAC) in 2024. Council officers have been in possession of the SAC Report since 2024. • The SAC Report confirms that the proposed house is not intended for occupation by a general farm worker or casual worker as implied in the Delegated Report, but would be occupied by the appellant’s son Greg as part of the succession arrangements for the future management of Boghall Farm. • The SAC Report confirms that there is a specific locational requirement for accommodation on site, and it is “crucial” in the interests of animal welfare, health and safety and biosecurity that, Greg resides on site to be able to deal quickly and efficiently with any risks which may arise to both the public and to the cattle. • The Labour Requirement Report confirms that the operation of the farm justifies in excess of 3 full-time job equivalents. Therefore, when Mike retires and Greg takes responsibility for the farm management, the effective operation of the farm will still justify an additional 2 full-time workers. Whereas Greg requires to live on the farm, the appellants accept that the additional workers could be accommodated elsewhere. • Discussions with Council planners regarding the succession arrangements for Boghall Farm have not been solely restricted to the Review proposal. Discussions commenced and have been ongoing since 22nd March 2023. Planning Application P/23/0536 sought approval for an alternative proposal for the redevelopment of a former steading within the unit at Moss Side. The application was withdrawn by the applicant following advice from Council planning officials. 81
Page 82
Page 4: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 2.0 PRELIMINARY MATTERS 2.1 A Planning Decision Notice is a formal document which conveys the decision of the planning authority. The matters to be included in a Decision Notice are specified under Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2.2 Section 37(2A) of the 1997 Act requires that the notice of the planning authority's decision on an application must include a statement: “as to whether the authority consider that the application is for a development that is in accordance with the development plan for the time being applicable to the area to which the application relates, together with an explanation of why the authority have reached that view”. 2.3 The Decision Notice on Application P/24/1305 includes a space for the Statement as required by Section 37(2A), but as can be seen shaded yellow in the image of Page 2 (below), the Decision Notice is silent on (i) whether the application is in accordance with the development plan, and no explanation is provided as to (ii) why the authority consider the application to be contrary to the development plan. The Decision Notice is Silent on the Reasons for the Decision 2.4 The Council’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements of the 1997 Act renders the decision unlawful. THE PLANNERS’ DECISION ON P/24/1305 IS UNLAWFUL 82
Page 83
Page 5: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 2.5 The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced a scheme of delegation under which decisions on certain types of planning application are delegated to officers. The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 sets out detailed day to day operation of the scheme. 2.6 Application P/24/1305 was a “local development” and therefore fell to be determined by officials. The Executive Director (Community and Enterprise) is authorised to discharge the Council’s Planning function in terms of section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. 2.7 Once issued, a planning decision notice cannot be withdrawn or replaced and its content cannot be altered other than through statutory procedures or by judicial review. The Council is held to be “functus officio”. In other words, the Council through the officer’s action has fully discharged its primary duty in relation to application P/24/1305. 2.8 This submission to the PLRB offers the Council the opportunity to reconsider the planning officer’s decision in the light of all facts relevant to the decision. 3.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY 3.1 The unlawful decision on P/24/1305 ought to be enough to guide the PLRB’s decision on this Planning Review. In the event of need for any further examination, the following submissions and responses to the specific reasons for refusal may further assist the PLRB in reaching a considered decision on this Review. 3.2 The officer’s Delegated Report on P/24/1305 disregards, or misrepresents, adopted development plan policy considerations in respect of 3 policies relevant to the determination of the proposal. These policies are: • NPF4 Policy 17(c)……………‘New Homes in Remote Rural Areas’ • NPF4 Policy 17(a)(vi) ……… ‘Single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding’; and • SLLDP2 Policy GBRA7……..‘Small Scale Settlement Expansion’ 3.3 The Planning Act requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with development plan policy. The development plan must be interpreted for its full terms. Scottish Government Circular 6/1990 clarifies that it is unreasonable behaviour on the part of a planning authority to: (i) fail to take account of Government policy; (ii) fail to give complete, precise and relevant THE PLANNERS’ DECISION IS BINDING ON THE COUNCIL UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SCHEME OF DELEGATION THE DELEGATED REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER RELEVANT ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY 83
Page 84
Page 6: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar reasons for refusal; and (iii) fail to take account of adopted development plan policy. The officers’ decision on P/24/1305 fails in respect of all three tests. NPF4 Remote Rural Area (Deeper Shade of Green) 3.4 The planning officers’ report fails to recognise that the site is located within the designated Remote Rural Area. Policy 17(c) of NPF4 states that Development proposals for new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where the proposal: (i) supports and sustains existing fragile communities; (ii) supports identified local housing outcomes; and (iii) is suitable in terms of location, access, and environmental impact. THE REVIEW SITE IS IN THE REMOTE RURAL AREA WHERE NPF4 POLICY 17(c) IS SUPPORTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT 84
Page 85
Page 7: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 3.5 Policy 17(a)(v) of NPF4 states that development in Rural Areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed and is for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. The proposal is for a single dwelling associated with the succession arrangements for Boghall Farm. 3.6 The Delegated Report accepts (in paragraph 3.5 of the officers’ report) that Boghall Farm is a viable farm unit. The report accepts that the siting of the proposal is coterminous with the built-up area (paragraph 1.1 officers’ report). The only design issue raised in the officers’ report relates to the use of “smooth white render”. The appellant’s response to this issue is addressed in Paragraphs 3.13 – 3.16 below. 3.7 Policy GBRA7 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) was relevant to the determination of P/24/1305, but was not taken into account in the decision. This omission also represents unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council. 3.8 Members of the Planning Committee will recall Application P/22/0819 at Rowhead Farm Biggar, which was considered at Committee on 24 January 2023. The application was recommended for refusal, but the Committee overturned the recommendation and granted permission for 2 houses. There was no agricultural justification for either house at Rowhead Farm. In his report, on Rowhead Farm, the planning officer stated: ”…the key policies associated with this proposal are Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) and Policy GBRA7 (Small Scale Settlement Extensions)”. 3.9 The Review proposal and Application P/22/0819 are similar. Both sites directly adjoin the built-up area of Biggar and Policy GBRA7 is relevant to both. In the interests of consistent decision-making, the Rowhead Farm decision is material in the determination of the Review proposal. However the officer’s report on the review proposal fails to make no reference either to Policy GBRA7, or to the Committee’s decision on the related application at Rowhead Farm. Planning Officer’s Refusal Reason No.1 Decision Notice P/24/1305) “The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would constitute an inappropriate form of development, without appropriate justification” THE DELEGATED REPORT FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH NPF4 POLICY 17 (a) (v) THE PLANNERS FAILED TO CONSIDER POLICY GBRA7 OF SLLDP2 WHICH SUPPORTS HOUSING ON THE EDGE OF COMMUNITIES Planning Authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty: they cannot make the development plan mean whatever they would like it to mean” Lord Brailsford (Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council) 85
Page 86
Page 8: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON No. 1 3.10 Paragraph 3.10 of the Delegated Report explains that Refusal Reason No.1 is justified under Policy 4 of SLLDP2 insofar as “it has not been established that there is a specific locational requirement” for the development. This statement misrepresents Policy 4 in two respects. 3.11 Firstly, the Council statement disregards the findings of the SAC Labour Requirement Report. No evidence is presented by the Council to suggest that the planning officer who made this judgement is better qualified in agricultural matters than the authors of the SAC Report who confirm that there is a need for a full-time management presence at the farm. Above: Extract From Supporting Statement Submitted with P/24/1305 Note References to: (1) Succession Management (2) SAC Labour Requirement Report (3) Labour Requirement of 3.19 Labour Units (4) It is “Crucial” for Greg Woodside to live on-site (5) AirBnB is essential to Farm Diversification 86
Page 87
Page 9: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 3.12 Secondly, Policy 4 of SLLDP2 as adopted by South Lanarkshire Council contains no reference to the need for a “specific locational requirement”. The wording of Policy 4 is reproduced below. It can be seen that the policy makes no reference to “specific locational requirement”. This phrase is a “Humpty Dumpty” planners’ interpretation of Council policy to justify the planners’ decision. RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON No.2 3.13 Refusal Reason No. 2 states that the proposal is contrary to Policy 5 and Policy GBRA1 of SLLDP2. The test of acceptability of proposals under each policy is the extent to which any proposal has an “unacceptable adverse impact” on amenity. 3.14 Refusal Reason No. 2 fails to identify in what way the proposal has an unacceptable effect on amenity. The wording of the refusal reason implies through the use of the words “exacerbate” and “further erosion” that a loss of amenity already exists, but no clarification is provided to explain in what way the proposal makes the impact adversely unacceptable. Above: The Design of the Review Proposal at Boghall Farm Considered “Inappropriate” by Council Planners Planning Officer’s Refusal Reason No. 2 Decision Notice P/24/1305 “The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking) and GBRA1 (Rural Design and Development) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would constitute an inappropriate form of development, without appropriate justification, which would exacerbate the impression of suburbanisation at this location, leading to further erosion of the rural character.” Policy 4 Green Belt and Rural Area Rural Area Within the Rural Area the Council seeks to protect the amenity of the countryside while, at the same time, supporting small scale development in the right places that is appropriate in land use terms and is of high environmental quality that will support the needs of communities. Green Belt and Rural Area Both the Green Belt and the Rural Area function primarily for agriculture, forestry, recreation and other uses appropriate to the countryside. Development which does not require to locate in the countryside will be expected to be accommodated within the settlements identified on the proposals map. Isolated and sporadic development will not be supported. 87
Page 88
Page 10: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar Above: White Finished Buildings in Biggar Conservation Area Top Left: Brownlies and The Crown Inn Top Right: Atkinson Pryce Mid Left: Fleming Arms and The Elphinstone Mid Right: Townhead Bakery Bottom Left: The Barony Bottom Right: Cross Keys RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON No. 3 THE PLANNERS REFUSAL OF APPLICATION P/24/1305 CLAIMS THAT WHITE BUILDINGS HAVE AN “UNACCEPTABLE ADVERSE IMPACT” ON THE CHARACTER AND AMENITY OF BIGGAR 88
Page 89
Page 11: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 3.15 Refusal Reason No. 3 clarifies that the proposal at Boghall Farm was rejected by Council planners because the proposed white render finish to the outside walls was unacceptable. The Delegated Report acknowledges that the roof would be clad in slate , but comments that “the external walls are to be finished in smooth white render which does not reflect the characteristics of the neighbouring farmhouse, or the traditional properties within Biggar”. 3.16 The author of the Delegated Report may have been unaware that many of the nearby traditional villas and cottages in Station Road, including the18 houses at Ballgreen Road are finished in white render, and that a white rendered or whitewashed finish is characteristic of some of the most prominent buildings in Biggar Conservation Area (illustrated above). It is respectfully submitted that it is the lack of uniformity and the contrast between white and natural stone finish which is one of the key characteristics of Biggar Conservation Area. 3.17 Refusal Reason No. 3 proceeds to assert that there are other properties within the farm which could be used to provide additional farm worker accommodation. This statement is not substantiated by any evidence on the part of the planning officer. 3.18 The steading at Boghall Farm is tightly developed with modern steel portal frame buildings directly abutting the traditional stone outbuildings. The old buildings are lacking in foundations and lack a damp proof course. They would be incapable economically of conversion to modern standards without total demolition and re-build. Even in the event that conversion would be feasible, the need to achieve modern-day space standards, amenity space and daylighting and sunlighting standards would necessitate most of the existing farm sheds being demolished, in which circumstance the farm would no longer be functional. RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON No.4 3.19 The Scottish Government expect that the planning system in Scotland should operate fairly, transparently and consistently. A fair and transparent planning system means that the reasons for refusal must be policy-based, intelligible and sufficient for the applicant to fully understand the grounds for the decision. It is not enough for a planning decision merely to refer to a failure to comply with the generality of planning policy. The reasons must be precise. 3.20 The test which this Review presents to members of the PLRB is the extent to which members are aware of the 6 Qualities of Successful Places, and the extent to which the wording of Refusal Reason No. 4 clarifies in which way the Review Proposal offends any or all of the Qualities of Successful Places. 89
Page 90
Page 12: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 3.21 It can safely be assumed that if elected members serving on the PLRB are unclear as to the meaning of Refusal Reason 4, then any member of the general public will be equally unclear. The refusal reason is clearly bad, and fails the test of reasonableness. 3.22 Consistency in decision making is also at the heart of the Scottish Government’s expectations for the planning system. Similar cases under similar circumstances must be considered in a similar manner. Such previous decisions are material considerations to be weighed up in the planning balance. 3.23 Paragraph 3.15 of the Delegated Report states there are no material considerations which outweigh the officers’ decision. This statement disregards the decision of the Planning Committee on 24th January 2023 to approve the construction of 2 houses on a site on the edge of Biggar at Rowhead Farm. This decision is material to the determination of this Review, but was not taken into account in the officers’ delegated decision. 3.24 The Rowhead Farm decision is significant in several respects. Firstly, the Planning Committee overturned the planning officers’ recommendation to refuse the proposal; secondly, the Rowhead Farm proposal had no agricultural justification; and thirdly, the buildings proposed at Rowhead Farm were proposed to be finished in smooth white render. The 2 houses have now been completed with smooth white render and are occupied as shown below. White Rendered Houses at Rowhead Farm, Biggar as Approved by the Planning Committee THE PLANNERS REFUSAL OF APPLICATION P/24/1305 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 24th JANUARY 2023 TO APPROVE 2 HOUSES AT ROWHEAD FARM, BIGGAR (APPLICATION REF: P/22/0819) 90
Page 91
Page 13: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON No.5 3.25 Refusal Reason No. 5 is also bad. Circular 6/1990 states that failure to give complete, precise, and relevant reasons for refusal of an application represents “unreasonable behaviour”. The planning authority must be able to support its reasons for refusal and they will be expected to show that they have reasonable planning grounds for their decision. Reason No. 5 merely refers to Policy 16 of NPF4 but fails to explain in what way the proposal offends Policy 16. In the event of a claim for an award of expenses the Council would likely be found liable for an award of expenses for unreasonable behaviour. RESPONSE TO REFUSAL REASON No.6 3.26 Refusal Reason No.6 is a denial of the facts as presented in Application P/24/1305 for consideration by the Council. The Supporting Statement submitted with the planning application and the Labour Requirement Report prepared by SAC Consulting, both clarify that the application is made in connection with the succession arrangements for the management of Boghall Farm, with the retiral of Mike Woodside. The SAC Report and the Supporting Statement both state that it is crucial that Greg Woodside lives on the farm to manage the farm operation. 3.27 The Refusal Reason states that it has not been demonstrated that it is essential for an “additional farm worker” to live permanently on the farm. This statement suggests that the Council do not recognise NPF4 Policy 17(a)(vi) which states: “Development proposals for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development” (vi) is for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding; 3.28 With Mike Woodside’s retiral, a refusal of planning permission would result in none of the 3 necessary farm workers living permanently on the farm. The reference in the refusal reason to an “additional worker” is not explained. The implication in the wording suggests that Mike Woodside is not entitled to retire. This wording is unreasonable and is contrary to Scottish Government policy. Planning Officer’s Refusal Reason No. 5 “The proposal would be contrary to Policy 16 - Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal is not consistent with the policy on rural homes. Planning Officer’s Refusal Reason No.6 “The proposal would be contrary to Policy 17 - Rural homes of National Planning Framework 4 as it has not been demonstrated that it is essential for an additional farm worker to be live permanently on the farm. 91
Page 92
Page 14: Grounds of Appeal P/24/1305 Boghall Farm Biggar Section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Procedure) Scotland Regulations 2013: Review Boghall Farm, Biggar 4.0 SUMMARY 4.1 It is respectfully submitted that the planning officers’ decision in respect of Application P/24/1305 is bad, and ought to be reversed by the Planning Local Review Board (PLRB). 4.2 The reasons on which members of the PLRB are invited to reject the planning officer’s decision are various, as detailed in the above report. In reaching a decision on this Review, members of the PLRB are invited to consider and to determine, the extent to which the terms of the planning officers’ refusal of Application P/24/1305 are considered to be: (a) Lawful (b) Reasonable (c) Substantiated (d) Precise; and (e) Consistent. 4.3 On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the planning officers’ decision on Application P/24/1305 fails in various respects to satisfy any of these tests, and also fails to satisfy any of South Lanarkshire Council’s, and the Scottish Government’s objectives for Rural Development. 4,4 For these reasons, the PLRB is urged to reverse the planning officers’ decision and to grant planning permission for this proposal. Gainford Planning 25 July 2025 92
Page 93
Supporting Statement Proposed Construction of Dwelling House and Domestic Garage in Connection with the Succession Management of Boghall Farm, Biggar 93
Page 94
Boghall Farm (Viewed from Boghall Road) PREFACE (i) This Design Statement is submitted in support of the application lodged with South Lanarkshire Council by Burrell Design Studio on behalf of the applicants Mike and Julie Woodside. The planning application seeks approval for the construction of a detached dwelling house in association with the applicant’s established farm enterprise at Boghall Farm. (ii) The following Statement sets out a description of the site and its surroundings, clarifies the nature of the proposal and explains the ways in which the proposal is supported by existing local and national and local planning policy. The Statement also addresses the implications of NPF4 on the proposal. 94
Page 95
CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2 Location 3. Application Site 4. Background 5. The Proposal 6. Locational Justification 7. National Planning Policy 8. Local Planning Policy 9. Conclusion Boghall Farm (1896) 95
Page 96
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The following Statement is made in support of the application for planning permission submitted to South Lanarkshire Council by Burrell Design Studio on behalf of the applicants Mike and Julie Woodside 1.2 This Design and Access Statement should be read in conjunction with the associated detailed plans and drawings which comprise the planning application submission. 1.3 A design and access statement is a written statement about the design principles and concepts that have been applied to the development and which explains the policy or approach adopted as to design and how any policies relating to design in the development plan have been taken into account; 1.4 The Statement, which explains the background to, and the nature of, the proposal, has been prepared in the context of the good practice guidance outlined in the CABE publication “Design and Access Statements”. 1.5 This approach reflects Scottish Government policy as set out in “Creating Places”, in PAN 68 ‘Design Statements’, and as required by Regulation 3 of Circular 3/2022 (paragraphs 3.18 – 3.39). 96
Page 97
Location of Application Site Shown with a Red Dot 2.0 LOCATION 2.1 The application site is located at Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar, ML12 6JJ. 2.2 The geographic references for the centre of the site are: OS Grid Ref: NT 03848 37025 Easting: 303848 Northing: 637025 Latitude: 55.617276 Longitude: -3.5282287 2.3 The QR Code for the location of the application site is shown below. What3Words: onions.cabs.racked 97
Page 98
3.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 3.1 The application site extends to some 1800 sq, metres, or thereby, in area and occupies part of the frontage of a paddock situated immediately to the south of the farmstead at Boghall Farm. 3.2 The paddock is bounded in part by a dry stane dyke with an internal post and wire fence. The application site is of limited agricultural value and previously has been used for temporary pens and storage. Relationship of Application Site to the Steading 3.3 A large shed, with approximately 900 sq metres floorspace is situated immediately to the north of the application site. A Permastore slurry tank is located in an adjoining paddock to the east of the application site. 3.4 A 33Kv overhead transmission line flanks the south-eastern corner of the application site, beyond which are the principal fields which comprise Boghall Farm. 3.5 The farm steading adjoins the 16 house development at Castle Yett and Rathmore Road, which falls within the settlement boundary. The farmstead and the application site adjoin the built-up area but are outwith the boundary of Biggar as shown on the development plan. 3.6 The application site is situated 540 metres from the bottom of the High Street, and approximately 1.0 km from the Corn Exchange. Former Activities Within Application Site 98
Page 99
Boghall Farm 99
Page 100
4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Boghall Farm Biggar is presently operated by a partnership comprising Mike and Julie Woodside. Mike and Julie have farmed Boghall for 27 years since acquiring the farm in 1997. 4.2 The farm extends to 80 hectares of permanent grassland with an additional 40 hectares of seasonal land for silage and cropping. The farm operates as a beef finishing unit typically carrying around 350 cattle at any one time with approximately 250 cattle being finished each year. 4.3 Mike Woodside works and manages most of the farm operation, with assistance as necessary from Julie. Outside contractors are employed for seeding and harvesting arable crops. 4.4 Mike is approaching the stage in his career when he needs to anticipate and plan for the succession arrangement for the management and operation of Boghall Farm. 4.5 Mike and Julie both actively form part of the Biggar community and could not contemplate a future away from Biggar or from the land they have managed for the last 27 years. However, they recognise that there is a pressing need to anticipate and to plan for the continuing operation of the family business. 4.6 Greg Woodside, Mike and Julie’s son, will assume responsibility for the future management and operation of the farm. 4.7 At present Greg lives and works remotely from Boghall Farm, but it is recognised with each passing year up to his parents’ retirement, that he will require to play an increasing role in helping to run the farm. 4.8 In order to establish the labour requirement for Boghall Farm, Mike and Julie commissioned the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC Consulting) to undertake a labour requirement report based on the current operation of the farm, and also in respect of the labour requirement required by future changes. 4.9 The report was completed in June 2024. Full details of the findings are included in the separate SAC report. 4.10 The SAC report concludes that the safe and efficient operation of the farm presently justifies 3.19 labour units. The planned future farm operation would increase the labour requirement to 3.89 labour units 4.11 The SAC report confirms that it is “crucial” having regard to health and welfare for Greg to be resident at Boghall Farm. 4.12 Farm income at Boghall is augmented by letting an Airbnb unit on site as part of farm diversification. The SAC report recognises the necessity for this unit to continue as part of the farm’s finances. 4.13 In summary, the SAC report fully supports the need for separate accommodation to allow Greg to contribute to the ongoing operation of Boghall Farm. 100
Page 101
5.0 THE PROPOSAL 5.1 The house as proposed is one-and-a-half storeys in height and contains ground floor accommodation comprising open- plan kitchen dining room lounge and snug, games room, separate living room, study, utility room and shower room/WC. The first-floor accommodation comprises three bedrooms and a central gallery. 5.2 The design is modelled on the principles and proportions typical of Scottish rural domestic architecture, interpreted to reflect present-day building standards within a contemporary design theme. 5.3 The roof and dormers are pitched at a traditional angle of 45 degrees and the walls are proposed to be finished with dry dash rendering. The roofing material as proposed is Marley Edgemere roof tiles. Timber cladding is proposed for infill panels. 5.4 A detached treble garage is proposed within the grounds and a games room is linked to the main accommodation with a timber clad lobby. The garage is finished in materials to match the finishes on the house and also has a 45 degree roof pitch. 101
Page 102
Site Section and Side Elevations 6.0 LOCATIONAL JUSTIFICATION 6.1 The accompanying application proposes the construction of a dwelling house necessary to support the sustainable operation of the farm business operated from Boghall Farm by Mike and Julie Woodside.. 6.2 Other than the general “expectation” that development proposals should be accommodated within identified settlements (Policy 4 of SLLDP2), there is no local development plan requirement for proposals to be supported by a locational justification. 6.3 The applicant understands nonetheless that it may be useful, by way of explanation, to account for the purpose and location of the proposal. Established Farm Unit 6.4 The applicants have operated Boghall Farm for 27 years. The family now need to make arrangements for Greg to take responsibility for the management and day-to-day running of the farm. Relationship to Fields and Steading 6.5 The existing Airbnb is essential to the economic viability of the farm. Neither the existing farmhouse nor the Airbnb provide any passive supervision of the grassland situated to the south of the farm steading. Therefore, neither option meets the requirement for stock supervision or security. On Public Road 6.6 In terms of access to public services, the application site fronts Boghall Road which contains all necessary utilities and is adopted for maintenance by South Lanarkshire Council. Space exists within the site to provide for amenity garden lands and to meet full parking and manoeuvring standards avoiding any overspill on to the public road. Neither Isolated nor Sporadic 6.7 The site is well-related to the existing farmhouse and steading at Boghall, and could not be considered to be either isolated or sporadic. Topography 6.8 The site is flat and no abnormal costs will be attracted by any requirement for levelling or underbuilding. Landscape Integration 6.9 There is adequate scope within the site to establish and consolidate a strong landscape edge. Proposed planting will integrate the development into the building group and enhance biodiversity. 102
Page 103
7.0 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY 7.1 The national framework for rural development in Scotland is set out in the Scottish National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which was adopted and published on 13 February 2023. NPF4 replaced NPF3 and SPP 2014, and now forms part of the statutory development plan. 7.2 Prior to the adoption of the next South Lanarkshire LDP, NPF4 and SLLDP2 will together comprise the statutory development. The policies of both plans will continue to have effect over this period. National Planning Framework 4 7.3 The Scottish Government is committed to enable more people to live and work rural areas. Rural policy as set out in NPF4 pledges to revitalise rural Scotland through a policy commitment which aims to: ►enable more balanced demographic change including sustainable rural development (Page 10) ►Support the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area (Page 50) ►encourage development that will contribute to rural economies and communities (Page 18) ►encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development (Page 50) ► encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach (Page 59) ►encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing (Page 76) 7.4 The accompanying proposal is supported by all of these overarching national aims. 7.5 NPF4 must be read and applied as a whole (33 policies). In practical terms the key policies relevant to this proposal are Policy 14 (Design, quality and place), Policy 15 (Local Living), Policy 17 (Rural homes), and Policy 29 (Rural development). Policy 14 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places:- Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving health.- Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces.- Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency- Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity.- Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions.- Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces 103
Page 104
Design, Quality and Place 7.6 Policy 14 aims to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. The proposed development will help to promote NPF4 by delivering quality new development which is healthy, pleasant, distinctive, connected, sustainable and adaptable. 7.7 Policy 15 aims to encourage, promote the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet most of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home by walking. wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport. Rural Homes 7.8 Policy 17 aims to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. 7.9 This policy is directed towards providing homes that support sustainable rural communities and are linked with service provision, and which maintain and safeguard the distinctive character, sense of place and natural and cultural assets. 7.10 Development proposals for new homes in rural areas must consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs (including affordable housing), economic considerations and the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. 7.11 Boghall is a viable farm holding. The proposal is for a single house to provide on-site accommodation for key personnel responsible for the operation and future management of the farm. 7.12 The house as proposed is suitably scaled, suitably sited and is designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. In all respects, the proposal satisfies the criteria for rural housing as contained in NPF4. Policy 17a Development proposals for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. Exceptions to the general presumption against development proposals in rural areas may be allowed where the proposal is for a single house for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding Policy 15 Development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. The existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to:• sustainable modes of transport including local public transport and safe, high quality walking, wheeling and cycling networks;• shopping employment;• health and social care facilities;• childcare, schools and lifelong learning opportunities;• playgrounds and informal play opportunities, parks, green streets and spaces, community gardens, opportunities for food growth and allotments, sport and recreation facilities;• publicly accessible toilets;• affordable and accessible housing options, ability to age in place and housing diversity 104
Page 105
Policy 29 Rural Development 7.13 Policy 29 supports the twin aims of supporting sustainable and vibrant rural communities, and maintaining a balanced and sustainable rural population 7.14 The policy aims to encourage rural economic activity, innovation and diversification whilst ensuring that distinctive character of the rural area and the service function of small towns and communities, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded and enhanced. 7.15 Farming is a key rural activity and is supported by Policy 29 of NPF4 which aims to deliver the Government’s commitment to revitalise rural Scotland by encouraging rural development in rural areas, and by recognising the need to grow and sustain rural communities. 7.16 The accompanying planning application attracts considerable weight from Policy 29, particularly in that it supports both the economic value of food from our own resources, and also plays a significant role in supporting rural communities and the services and resources on which rural communities depend. Cllr Ross Gowland SLC Good Food Champion 8.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8.1 The local development plan is the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as adopted by South Lanarkshire Council on 9th April 2021. 8.2 The key policies of the Plan most relevant to this proposal are: • Policy 4: Green Belt and Rural Area • Policy 5 Development Management • Policy GBRA10: Accommodation Associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business POLICY 4 GREEN BELT & RURAL AREA 8.3 Policy 4 seeks to achieve 3 main aims: (i) to direct development to the locations which best support regeneration; (ii) to protect the character and identity of settlements; and (iii) to protect and provide access to open space. Policy 29b Development proposals in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. They should also consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. Development proposals in remote rural areas, where new development can often help to sustain fragile communities, will be supported where the proposal: (i) will support local employment;(ii) supports and sustains existing communities, for example through provision of digital infrastructure; and (iii). is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. 105
Page 106
8.4 The accompanying planning application raises no issue with any of the aims of Policy 4. POLICY 5 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 8.5 Policy 5 aims to ensure that proposals are well-designed and integrated with the local area. The proposal has been designed to integrate with the adjoining development and reflect the character of the area. No conflict arises with Policy 5. 8.6 Policy GBRA2 supports diversification and growth of the rural economy where it protects the distinctive character of the area, the service function of small towns and villages, and the natural and cultural heritage. SLLDP2 Policy GBRA2 is fully supportive of the proposal 8.7 Policy GBRA10 translates to the local level the national planning policy direction contained in NPF4 which aims to regenerate Scotland’s rural economy and contribute to rural revitalisation Policy GBRA10 is fully supportive of the proposal. 106
Page 107
9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 Section 25 of the 1997 Act requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 9.2 In assessing the planning application to which this Statement relates, regard must be paid in the first instance to SLLDP2 and to NPF4 which together comprise the statutory development plan. Both plans must be considered and applied for their full terms, unless incompatibility arises. 9.3 There is no incompatibility in respect of adopted planning policy in respect of retirement succession arrangements for farmers. Policy17 of NPF4 clarifies beyond doubt, the support afforded by national planning policy towards retirement succession arrangements for farmers. 9.4 Contrary to commonly-held popular belief, the countryside does not exist solely for the enjoyment of those who wish to escape from the cities at weekends, or for longer holiday breaks. Similarly, the role of the farming community is not to manage the land solely for the benefit of Sunday afternoon ramblers or for countryside drives. 9.5 The countryside is a workplace for the farmers who produce 60% (by value) of UK’s food. Farmers work for an hourly rate which would be unacceptable to office or factory workers. Paid holiday entitlement is a rarity in farming. 9.6 Environmental stewardship helps maintain landscape quality, wildlife habitats, local ecosystems and biodiversity. However, scant regard is paid to the contribution which farming makes to the countryside. Year on year added restrictions are placed in the way of agricultural production. 9.7 The need for more sustainable farming practices has generally been acknowledged both by the food industry and by the farming community. Various schemes are now being promoted to enhance environmental awareness and sustainability in farming practices. These changes add to the responsibilities of all involved in the farming community. 9.8 In terms of policy as contained in both SLLDP2 and NPF4, the proposal is consistent with both elements of the development plan. 107
Page 108
9.9 When tested against the policies of NPF4, it can be seen that the development as proposed is scaled sited and designed in keeping with local character (Policy 17) and the proposal will support continuity of agricultural production. In this way the proposal will assist future local job opportunity and sustain local services (Policy 29) 9.10 When assessed against the policies of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, it can be seen that the proposal raises no tensions with either Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area), or Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking), or with Policy GBRA10 (Accommodation Associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business). 9.11 The accommodation as proposed is justified in connection with the operation of Boghall Farm and the proposal raises no tension with adopted planning policy. 9.12 For these reasons, South Lanarkshire Council is urged to support the proposal. Gainford Planning Consultants September 2024 108
Page 109
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 3g 109
Page 110
110
Page 111
Date: 23rd September 2025 Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Local Review Body: Response to Notice for Review Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker) Applicant: Site address: MS Woodside Boghall Farm Boghall Road Biggar ML12 6JJ Application no: P/24/1305 1. Planning Background 1.1 Boghall Farm is situated directly adjacent to the settlement boundary of Biggar. The steading contains two dwellings a traditional two storey farmhouse and a single storey dwelling. Mr and Mrs Woodside reside in the farmhouse and the single storey dwelling is utilised as a short term let. 1.2 The application as submitted was described as Erection of dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker). 1.3 Within the supporting statements submitted it is detailed that Mr Greg Woodside, the son of the farmer, is an entering party to the business; however, he does not currently work or reside on the farm or in the surrounding area. The supporting statement advises Mr Woodside Jnr.’s involvement is a succession plan to allow Mr Woodside Snr. to reduce working hours to allow him to retire at some point in the future. No timescales have been identified. 1.4 The business currently operated by predominantly Mr Woodside Snr. with additional workers brought in as and when is needed. There has been no requirement to date to have these workers live on site. 1.5 There has been previous applications received within the lands of Boghall, one withdrawn prior to validation and one withdrawn prior to decision (P/23/0536). The applications sought to demolish a ruinous building and replace with a dwelling in a similar design to what is proposed in this application. It was advised the proposal would only be successful if the existing ruinous building was retained or reflected in the design proposed. The agent was advised to engage in pre-application discussions prior to any 3g 111
Page 112
formal resubmission. No preapplication advice in relation to that site or this proposal under appeal was sought prior to submission of the application. 2 Observations on the appellant’s Notice of Review. 2.1 The appellant has submitted a statement to support their review. The grounds raised will be summarised and responded to below. 2.2 The appellant has considered the decision to be unlawful. 2.3 Response: The decision is not unlawful. The reasons for the decision are clearly stated on the decision notice. 2.4 There is precedent for this type of proposal, referring to Rowhead decision. Furthermore, the proposal should have been assessed against LDP Policy GBRA 7 Small Settlement Extensions (Rural Area Only) 2.5 Response: The case at Rowhead on the opposite side of Biggar was approved by Councillors overturning the Planning Authority’s decision making under a different development plan. This case did not relate to a farm. 2.6 Since the introduction of NPF4 proposals are required to meet the local development plan policies and those within NPF4. There is no comparable policy in NPF4 which supports the extension of settlement boundaries, and where an incompatibility exists whichever is the later of the two development plans is to prevail, which in this case is NPF4. 2.7 The appellant considers there is precedent for the design, notably white render on other buildings within Biggar. 2.8 Response: Boghall Farmhouse is a two-storey traditional farmhouse with two single storey elements flanking each side. It sits perpendicular to Boghall Road, finished with dressed sandstone (signalling its significance as it was the norm for farmhouses to be finished with random rubble), quoin detailing on all windows, and attractive chimney features. 2.9 As the Report of Handling set out it was considered that a suburban white rendered building adjacent to the traditional farmhouse did not sit well together. The painted white buildings within Biggar town centre are not in the same setting as this proposal and do not set a precedent. 2.10 There are other suburban features to the design, including the siting of a garage to the front of the property, a deep plan which results in the pitch of the roof and form of the proposal not being reflective of the farmhouse. The proposed positioning of the dwelling at an angle, with a sweeping drive and parking to the front is also not reflective of the traditional farmhouse and its setting. 112
Page 113
2.11 As the Report of Handling detailed it was not considered that the proposed dwelling had considered the surrounding area. It should be noted that the initial proposed design at this site is the same design as was proposed at another site within Boghall lands. The agent later made some amendments however it demonstrates that the design had not initially been designed for this site or taken cognisance of its immediate surroundings. 2.12 The appellant considered there has been a failure to assess the proposal under NPF4 Policy 17 in terms of rural housing which includes an exception for rural housing under the following cases – (vi) a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. 2.13 Response: The description of development given on validation for the proposal was - ‘Erection of dwellinghouse (accommodation for farm worker). This was not disputed by the agent or applicant. The proposed dwelling is not for a retiring party. 2.14 The supporting statement does refer to succession planning, detailed in the background to the proposal. There is no timescale given for the succession of the business to Mr Woodside Jnr. 2.15 However, it has not been demonstrated why, with the farm being directly adjacent to the settlement of Biggar, a dwelling within the settlement would not be suitable for either a retiring or entering party. 2.16 The appellant considers that it has been demonstrated there is a specific locational need and that it is crucial that Mr Greg Woodside resides on the farm. 2.17 Response : NPF4 Policy 17 also includes a policy exception a dwelling can be approved for a development (v) is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croft, and there is an essential need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work. 2.18 The Report of Handling has concluded that the business is a viable farm unit where the short term let is included in the finances. A labour requirement report, produced by Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), was submitted in support of the application, which does demonstrate under different scenarios that the labour requirement is over 3 persons. The scenarios include an increase in stock and a variance in the hours inputted into the short term let use. 2.19 Whilst the labour requirement may be over three it does require to be demonstrated it is essential for the two workers (Mr Woodside Snr. and Mr Woodside Jnr.) to each have a dwelling at the farm, i.e. why both parties are required to be on site over 24 hours. 113
Page 114
2.20 The appeal statement details that it is ‘crucial’ both parties are on site quoting the submitted labour requirement report but does not qualify or explain why it is crucial. The PLRB should be reminded that SAC are a consultant to the applicant not an independent party. 2.21 The labour requirement report details that it is crucial two persons are on site for safety reasons; it should be two persons on site working together with cattle. This is likely to be predominantly during the day for planned work, it does not demonstrate a permanent onsite presence of two persons. Even in the event of emergency issues after hours, the settlement of Biggar is directly adjacent, and the additional person would be able to attend quickly from a dwelling within the settlement. 2.22 A further reason was to deal with cattle escaping on to the road. The western fields lie adjacent to the A702 close to the entrance with Biggar. The fields have a burn between one field and the A702 and the field which borders the A702 is already double fenced. Regardless of the risk of escape, the majority of dwellings situated within Biggar settlement would be closer certainly to the A702 than the proposal. 2.23 An additional reason was security, with two dwellings already on site it is not considered a third would pose a significant change to the deterrent of thieves. There are various other measures which can be taken for rural security other than the construction of an additional dwelling. 2.24 It has not been demonstrated that it is essential to have two permanent workers at the farm, in particular when the settlement boundary of Biggar is directly adjacent to the farm and could provide housing near to the farm. 2.25 The appellants considers that there has been a failure to consider a policy on the remote rural area. 2.26 Response: NPF4 Policy 17(c) includes a policy on remote rural area where proposals in these areas will be supported where it supports and sustains a fragile community and supports local housing outcomes. There have been no local housing outcomes for the Biggar area identified in the local development plan. 2.27 The site is located in the remoter rural area; however, it is not considered the community of Biggar is a fragile community or how this proposal would support that community. There are already specific policies in place to directly support farming businesses, which have been discussed above. 2.28 In conclusion, it has not been demonstrated that there is a need for an additional dwelling at Boghall Farm to support the existing business. The main material consideration which would set this proposal apart from other 114
Page 115
dwellings on farms is the site’s location adjacent to the settlement boundary of Biggar. 115
Page 116
116
Page 117
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representation Submitted by Planning and Regulatory Services in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 3h 117
Page 118
118
Page 119
Page 1: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 refused: front elevation Because of “Inappropriate Suburban Design” [Ref Para 2(F) (i-v)] refused: site plan Because of a “Sweeping Drive” and the Dwelling Orientated “at an Angle” to Boghall Road [Ref Para 2(F)(i-v)] Appellant’s Response to the Planning Authority’s Observations on the Notice of Review: Application P/24/1305 Boghall Farm, Biggar 3h 119
Page 120
Page 2: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This statement is submitted to the Planning Local Review Body (PLRB) on behalf of the appellants, in response to the planning officer’s comments dated 23rd September 2025 in respect of the Notice of Review for Boghall Farm, Boghall Road, Biggar. 1.2 The following submission aims to draw the attention of the members of the PLRB to various omissions, inaccuracies, misrepresentations and factual errors contained in the planning officer’s comments. The appellants accept that the planning officer’s comments understandably are made in order to support and justify the planning officer’s initial refusal reasons for Application P/24/1305. Tameside Duty 1.3 The appellant respectfully submits that the PLRB, in reaching a decision on this Review, is bound by the principles inherent in the “Tameside duty”. Elected members may be aware that the “Tameside duty” is a principle in public law which requires decision-makers to be fully informed and to have made sufficient inquiry into the relevant facts before reaching a decision on a planning proposal. Compliance with this duty provides a defence against a legal challenge on a decision being taken on the basis of flawed information. 1.4 The appellant accepts that it is for the PLRB to consider all relevant facts and to reach a considered decision having weighed the arguments for and against the proposal and to have considered the associated risks. 2.0 Response to Planning Officer’s Comments 2.1 The following comments are referenced to the paragraph numbers in the planning officer’s comments: (A) Paragraph 1.1 “The steading contains two dwellings” (i) The wording used by the planning officer implies that there are two dwellings within the farm steading. In reality the farmhouse is the only dwelling. An outbuilding within the farmyard has been converted for use as an Airbnb, as part of a farm diversification scheme. The Airbnb is ideal for short-term holiday breaks but would not offer the space or facilities (ie garden ground) to meet the Council standards for use as full-time family accommodation. The planning officer’s comments are misleading. (B) Paragraph 1.3 The farmer’s son “does not .. work or reside on the farm or in the surrounding area” (i) Unsubstantiated information breaches the principles of natural justice and cannot be used to influence planning decisions. It is correct to say that Mr Woodside’s son resides elsewhere, but it is misleading for the planners to allege that he “does not work on the farm”. Mr Woodside’s son helps out with farm work as necessary when circumstances permit. 120
Page 121
Page 3: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 (C) Paragraph 1.4 “There has been no requirement to date to have workers live on site”. (i) The appellant, Mike Woodside lives at Boghall Farm and is the only resident farm worker. He is approaching retirement and aims to pass responsibility for the operation of the farm to his son. The planner’s argument is based on the premise that if Mr Woodside does not retire, then there will be no need for the proposal. It is respectfully submitted that it is not the prerogative of the planners to decide whether Mr Woodside can retire. Scottish Government planning policy supports rural homes for retiring farmers. (D) Paragraph 2.3 “The decision (on Application P/24/1305) is not unlawful” (i) The matters to be included in a Decision Notice are specified under Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Section 37(2A) of the 1997 Act was introduced by the 2019 Act and requires that : “The notice of the planning authority’s decision on an application must include a statement as to whether the authority consider that the application is for a development that is in accordance with the development plan for the time being applicable to the area to which the application relates together with an explanation of why the authority have reached that view.” (ii) The wording of Section 37(2A) is quite specific in requiring that a decision “must include a statement”, of reasons and must include an explanation of “why the authority have reached that view.” The Section 37(2A) requirement must be clear on the face of the decision notice. The section of the decision notice headed “Reason(s) for Decision” remains blank with no explanation of why the Council have reached the decision to refuse the application. The decision notice for Application P/24/1305 does not provide the full explanation as required by Section 37(2A) in respect of at least 5 of the reasons for refusal. (iii) A full explanation of the appellant’s case may be necessary to clarify the extent to which the decision fails to meet the statutory requirement of Section 37(2A). The test of the lawfulness of the decision centres on the extent to which the appellant has been prejudiced by the Council’s failure to provide a sufficiently reasoned decision. Refusal Reason No. 3 (iv) Irrespective of the Council’s failure to complete the “Reason(s) for Decision” section of the decision notice, the appellant accepts in respect of Reason No.3 that the policy base for the refusal reason No.3 is clear, and that the refusal reason is also clearly specified, with reference to the proposed white rendered wall finish being considered by the planning officer as being contrary to Policy GBRA10. (v) Whilst accepting that Reason No,3 may satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 37(2A), the appellants otherwise challenge the validity of Reason No.3. The primary thrust of Policy GBRA10 is towards the justification of housing associated with existing or proposed rural businesses. Refusal reason No.3 does not challenge the need for additional accommodation on the farm unit. Instead, Refusal reason No.3 firstly opposes the Review Proposal on the basis of the proposed finish of the external walls of the house. 121
Page 122
Page 4: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 (vi) Secondly, refusal reason No.3 challenges the need for the proposal on the basis that suitable accommodation exists in the form of the converted outbuilding in the farmyard, which augments the farm income through short-term Airbnb lets. The planners neglect to mention that the Airbnb accommodation does not meet the requirements for full-time occupation, and the building cannot be extended. Refusal Reason Nos 1,2,4,5 and 6 (vi) Whereas Reason No.3 may satisfy the test of being clear and concise, the same conclusion cannot be reached in relation to Reason Nos 1,2,4, 5 and 6. (vii) Reason 1 refers to the Review Proposal as being “an inappropriate form of development”. No reasoned explanation is provided (as required by Section 37[2A] ) of what aspect of the proposal makes the development “inappropriate”. The introductory text of Policy 4 states that the aim of the policy is to “ensure there is no unacceptable significant adverse impact on the environment or on local services and infrastructure” (emphasis added). Even if it were known as to what aspect of the proposal was “inappropriate”, it would not conflict with Policy 4 unless it resulted in an “unacceptable significant adverse impact”. (viii) Reason No.2 in respect of Policy 5 similarly relies on the planning officer’s fictitious test referring to some unspecified element of the proposal being “inappropriate”. As with Policy 4, the actual test applied by Policy 5 is the avoidance of any “unacceptable significant adverse impact”. In addition to being non-specific, the refusal reason fails to draw support from Policy 5 and fails to satisfy Section 37(2A). (ix) Reason No.4 is totally lacking in specification and presents an unqualified statement about non-compliance with the 6 qualities of successful places. The failure to identify in which way the Review Proposal offends any or all of the 6 qualities of successful places falls well short of the requirements of Section 37(2A). (x) Reason No.5 refers generally to the proposal being inconsistent with the policy on quality homes. This refusal reason fails to explain in what way the proposal conflicts with NPF4 Policy 16, and therefore similarly fails to meet the statutory requirements of Section 37(2A). (xi) Reason No.6 refers to NPF4 Policy 17 and states that “it has not been demonstrated that it is essential for another farm worker to live permanently on the farm”. The policy intent of NPF4 Policy 17 is “To encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations.” The thrust of this policy is almost identical word for word with SLLDP2 Policy 4 (“supporting small-scale development in the right places”). The right places supported by SLLDP2 in the Rural Area include a range of circumstances including gap-sites, consolidation of building groups and small- scale extensions to the edge of existing communities in the rural area. 122
Page 123
Page 5: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 (E) Paragraph 2.5 The Rowhead Farm proposal was approved “under a different development plan. (i) The Rowhead Farm proposal was approved by the full Planning Committee at the meeting of Tuesday 24th January 2023. The recorded minute of the meeting reads: (ii) The Elected Members’ decision to approve the Rowhead Farm application was based on their judgement that the site was a “gap site” as defined under Policy GBRA8 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2(SLLDP2). NPF4 was adopted by Scottish Ministers on February 13, 2023, from which time it became part of the statutory development plan. NPF4 did not replace the suite of GBRA policies of SLLDP2, including GBRA7 (Small-scale Settlement Extensions), which continues to have effect. The planning officer’s statement in Paragraphs 2.5-2.6 is wrong in law. (F) Paragraph 2.5 “positioning of the dwelling at an angle, with a sweeping drive” (i) Refusal Reason No.3 contains the only specific detail of the design reason why Application P/24/1305 was refused. (ii) The Council’s response to the Notice of Review now clarifies that 2 other features also contributed to the reasons for refusal. These features comprised (a) the orientation of the proposed house at an angle to Boghall Road; and (b) a ”sweeping driveway”. (iii) It is evident that the officer(s) who prepared and/or authorised the Council’s response to the Notice of Review may be unaware that the comments submitted specifically in Paragraph 2.5 (and possibly throughout the Council’s submission) relate to a different proposal – and not to the plans and drawings as refused ! (iv) Application P/24/1305 was submitted to the Council in October 2024. Following discussion with Council officers over the next 8 months, the proposal as initially lodged, was subject to various amendments, including alterations to the site plan and the building elevations. The Refusal Notice refers specifically to Drawing Nos. 1280-01B-03B. The planning officer’s comments do not relate to these documents and appear to relate to earlier superseded drawings. “Councillor McDonald, seconded by Councillor Barker, moved that the application be granted subject to appropriate conditions, to be prepared by officers, on the grounds that the application site was deemed to be a gap site. On a vote being taken using the electronic voting system, 7 members voted for the motion, 14 for the amendment and 1 abstained” Extract of Minute of Planning Committee of 24 January 2023 Council Planners Lose All Credibility as the Council’s Response to the Notice of Review (P/24/1305) is Based on the WRONG PROPOSAL 123
Page 124
Page 6: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 (v) Such a fundamental error undermines the whole authority of the Council’s response to this Notice of Review. (G) Paragraph 2.15 it has not been demonstrated why, “a dwelling within the settlement would not be suitable” (i) The Council comments suggests that the planners have attached no weight to the findings of the Labour Requirement Report commissioned for Boghall Farm. The Labour Requirement Report for Boghall Farm is based on the Farm Management Handbook 2023/24 and clearly states that the safe operation of Boghall Farm requires 3.26 full-time workers. With Mr Woodside approaching retirement, the report further confirms that “it is crucial” that Mr & Mrs Woodside’s son “resides on site” in the interests of animal welfare and public health and safety, and as part of the succession arrangements for managing the farm. (ii) Boghall Road is a narrow popular walking route which bisects the farm, and forms part of the local Core Footpath Network. Any animal breaking loose from the adjoining fields could run loose within Biggar Town Centre within minutes. An on-site presence is essential in the interests of public safety. (iii) The Council’s Response does not identify either the name or qualifications of the officer who prepared the report. Therefore, it remains unknown whether the Council officer is better qualified on agricultural matters than the Scottish Agricultural College professionals who prepared the Boghall Farm Report. (H) Paragraph 2.27 “it is not considered the community of Biggar is a fragile community” (i) The Council state that Biggar is not a fragile community, but the planners have failed to present evidence to support that view. According to the Scottish Government various factors contribute to communities being considered fragile. Demographically, Biggar is fragile. The Council’s own published Profile for the four data zones which cover Biggar shows that 13.8% of the Biggar population is aged 75 years or older, and over 1 in 10 of Biggar’s population is aged between 75 and 84 (almost double the South Lanarkshire figure). Almost 1 in 5 households in Biggar are single-person households and the pensioner dependency rate in Biggar is 10% higher than for South Lanarkshire as a whole. (ii) The Council accept that the Review Site is located in the remote rural area, but the planners fail to recognise that one of the main aims of NPF4 is to sustain rural communities and to reverse population loss. Biggar and extensive areas of rural Clydesdale, including the data zone which includes the Review Site, continue to experience population loss. NPF4 states: • “We will do all we can to help reverse depopulation across rural Scotland” • “Further action should be taken to encourage economically active people to (move to) previously inhabited areas” 124
Page 125
Page 7: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 (iii) South Lanarkshire planners appear to be unaware of, or to deny this aspect of national planning policy. (iv) The following plan of South Lanarkshire shows the population change, by census data zone, between 2011 and 2021. Areas which have experienced an increase in population are shown coloured with varying shades of blue. Areas which have experienced population loss are coloured with different shades of orange and comprise a broad area flanking the eastern and southern boundaries of South Lanarkshire from Forth to Douglas including Biggar and the Review Site. 125
Page 126
Page 8: Response to South Lanarkshire Council’s Comments on Notice of Review P/24/1305 3.0 Summary (i) The Council’s response to Notice of Review could, most charitably, be described as being A Catalogue of Errors. Decision Notice P/24/1305 was unlawful (ii) The initial fatal error is contained on the face of the decision notice which fails to meet the legal requirements of Section 37(2A) of the 1997 Planning Act by failing to provide a full explanation of why the proposal is considered to be contrary to the development plan. The Council’s response fails to address this issue. The decision on Application P/24/1305 is not lawful. (iii) It would therefore be unlawful for members of the PLRB to support the decision as issued by the planning officer. List of Failures in Council Planners’ Handling of Application P/24/1305 • Failure to issue a lawful decision notice; • Failure to consider the Correct Plans; • Failure to consider all relevant development plan policies; • Failure to recognise that the Review Site is located in the Remote Rural Area; • Failure to recognise that the population of the Remote Rural area is in decline; • Failure to understand the fragility of the population age-profile in the Biggar area; • Failure to acknowledge and to respond to the housing crisis in South Lanarkshire; • Failure to acknowledge the authority of the Labour Requirement Report; • Failure to respect and to take into account material considerations including elected member’s decision to approve a similar proposal at Rowhead Farm, Biggar. (iv) For the reasons outlined above, it is respectfully suggested that the Review Proposal should be allowed Gainford Planning 6th October 2025 126
Page 127
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 27 October 2025 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/25/0470 for Erection of Two Storey Side Extension, First Floor Extension Above Garage and Associated Alterations at 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to present the information currently available to allow a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, on the following application:- [purpose] 1.2. Summary Application Information Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Naveed Ahmad Proposal: Erection of a two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Location: 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA Council Area/Ward: 17 – Hamilton North and East 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review 4 127
Page 128
[1recs] 3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision. 3.2. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where an application for planning permission relates to a proposal that falls within the category of “local development” and has been or could have been determined under the Scheme of Delegation, the applicant is entitled to request that the determination be reviewed by the Planning Local Review Body. 4. Notice of Review – Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review 4.1. In submitting their Notice of Review, the applicant has stated their reasons for requiring a review of the determination in respect of their application. (Refer Appendix 5) 4.2. The applicant is entitled to state a preference for procedure (or combination of procedures) to be followed and has indicated that their stated preference is as follows:- Further written submissions X Site inspection X Hearing session(s) Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure 4.3. However, members will be aware that it is for the Planning Local Review Body to determine how a case is reviewed. 5. Information Available to Allow Review of Application 5.1. Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 restricts the ability of parties to introduce new matters at the review stage. The focus of the review should, therefore, be on the material which was before the officer who dealt with the application under the Scheme of Delegation. 5.2. The following information is appended to this report to assist the Planning Local Review Body in its review of the decision taken by officers:- Planning Application Form (Appendix 1) Report of Handling by the Planning Officer under the Scheme of Delegation (Appendix 2(a)) Copies of representations (Appendix 2(b)) Site photographs and location plan (Appendix 3) Decision notice (Appendix 4) Notice of Review including statement of reasons for requiring the review (Appendix 5) 5.3. Copies of the relevant drawings are available for inspection by contacting Administration and Legal Services prior to the meeting. 128
Page 129
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 2 further representations were received, including a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. These are attached as Appendix 6. 6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received. Comments from the applicant’s agent are contained in the submission attached as Appendix 7. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 13 October 2025 Link(s) to Council Values/Ambitions/Objectives Work with communities and partners to promote high quality, thriving and sustainable communities Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References None List of Background Papers Guide to the Planning Local Review Body Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Stuart McLeod, Administration Officer Tel: 07385 370 117 E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 129
Page 130
130
Page 131
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 4a 131
Page 132
132
Page 133
Page 1 of 6 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.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 100692519-002 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. Description of Proposal Please describe accurately the work proposed: * (Max 500 characters) 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 Erection of a two-storey side extension, extension over the existing garage and internal alterations. 4a 133
Page 134
Page 2 of 6 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: * KS Architectural Mr Khrum Naveed Syed Ahmad Saffronhall Lane Mote Hill 2 83 Suite 01 Saffronhall Studios ML3 6LS ML3 6EA United Kingdom United Kingdom Hamilton Hamilton info@ksarchitectural.co.uk info@ksarchitectural.co.uk 134
Page 135
Page 3 of 6 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 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. Access and Parking Are you proposing a new or altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If yes, please descr be and show on your drawings the position of any existing, altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you proposed to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. 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? * 83 MOTE HILL South Lanarkshire Council HAMILTON ML3 6EA 655903 272252 135
Page 136
Page 4 of 6 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: Khrum Syed On behalf of: Mr Naveed Ahmad Date: 25/04/2025 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * 136
Page 137
Page 5 of 6 Checklist – Application for Householder Application 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) Have you provided a written description of the development to which it relates?. * Yes No b) Have you provided the postal address of the land to which the development relates, or if the land in question Yes No has no postal address, a description of the location of the land? * c) Have you provided the name and address of the applicant and, where an agent is acting on behalf of the Yes No applicant, the name and address of that agent.? * d) Have you provided a location plan sufficient to identify the land to which it relates showing the situation of the Yes No land in relation to the locality and in particular in relation to neighbouring land? *. This should have a north point and be drawn to an identified scale. e) Have you provided a certificate of ownership? * Yes No f) Have you provided the fee payable under the Fees Regulations? * Yes No g) Have you provided any other plans as necessary? * Yes No Continued on the next page A copy of the other plans and drawings or information necessary to describe the proposals (two must be selected). * You can attach these electronic documents later in the process. Existing and Proposed elevations. Existing and proposed floor plans. Cross sections. Site layout plan/Block plans (including access). Roof plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Additional Surveys – for example a tree survey or habitat survey may be needed. In some instances you Yes No may need to submit a survey about the structural condition of the existing house or outbuilding. A Supporting Statement – you may wish to provide additional background information or justification for your Yes No Proposal. This can be helpful and you should provide this in a single statement. This can be combined with a Design Statement if required. * You must submit a fee with your application. Your application will not be able to be validated until the appropriate fee has been Received by the planning authority. Declare – For Householder Application I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for planning permission as descr bed in this form and the accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information. Declaration Name: Mr Khrum Syed Declaration Date: 25/04/2025 137
Page 138
Page 6 of 6 Payment Details Online payment: Payment date: 25/04/2025 05:21:00 Created: 25/04/2025 05:21 138
Page 139
Report of Handling Report dated 23 June 2025 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 4b 139
Page 140
140
Page 141
Reference no. P/25/0470 Delegated Report Date 20th June 2025 Planning proposal: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Location: 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Application Type: Householder Applicant: Mr. Naveed Ahmad Location: 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Decision: Other action/notes: Application refused (1) None Report by: Area Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 2023) Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 14 - Design, quality and place Policy 16 - Quality homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2021) Policy 2 - Climate change Policy 3 - General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking Policy DM2 - House Extensions and Alterations Supporting Planning Guidance – Development at a Dwellinghouse (November 2022) Assessment Impact on privacy? No Impact on sunlight/daylight? No Impact on amenity? No Traffic issues? No Adheres to development plan policy? No Adverse comments from consultees? No Consultations Summary of response None Not available 4b 141
Page 142
Representation(s): ► 1 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 142
Page 143
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 Householder planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension, with a first-floor extension above the garage, and associated alterations at 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA. 1.2 The site is located on a prominent corner location within the residential Mote Hill development in Hamilton. To the east lies the Hamilton ice rink, to its west is a Lidl, to its north is housing that backs onto Hamilton Racecourse, with a mix of housing and retail to its south. The detached dwellings along Mote Hill are similar style two storey (red or buff) facing brick, with hipped roofs and Marley concrete tiles, dark grey uPVC windows, dark grey uPVC doors, white roof soffits, brown roof facia, and brown uPVC rainwater goods. Off street parking is provided by a drive in the front curtilage and within the attached garage located to the front of the property. 1.3 The proposed two-storey side extension would extend the ground floor kitchen and first floor bedrooms by 3.950m by 5.45m (or thereby). Additionally, a bay window, 0.912m by 3.6m (or thereby) would protrude from the proposed (western) side elevation of the ground floor kitchen extension. The bay window would have a mono pitched roof 2.3m high at its eaves, and reaching a maximum height of 3.3 m. A first-floor extension is proposed over the existing garage located to the front of the dwelling, adding a 6.148m by 5.8m (or thereby) area for the master bedroom above. A new hipped roof, rising to a height of 5m high (or thereby) at its eaves line, and an overall maximum hight of 7.5 metres high at its ridge and sits 0.4m (or thereby) below the primary dwelling’s ridgeline. A 0.6m wide, by 1m high window faces out to the north from the main bedrooms associated ensuite. A 1.1m wide, by 1m high (two) window opening, and the 1.65m wide, by 1m high (three) window opening are also proposed on the first floor of the side (facing west) elevation. 1.4 The applicant’s site is relatively level, with the Mote Hill Road being on a sloped incline as it wynds down to the east. Timber fencing encloses the applicant’s side and rear boundaries, with the front of the property having unobstructed access from the public realm. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Statutory neighbour notification was undertaken on the 30th of April 2025. Two letters of representation have been received as a result of this publicity. The issues raised within this can be summarised as follows:- (a) Concern regarding loss of privacy from the windows proposed on the rear elevation of the extension. Response: The objector only has one window visible above the shared fence line with the applicant. This is a non-habitable bathroom, that would be located 7.2 metres (or thereby) away from the proposed bedroom window on the rear elevation of the side extension. As a result, no loss of privacy would result from the proposed construction. (b) Concern regarding loss of light to the property. Response: The proposed extension is located to the north of their property, therefore following the sun path, direct sunlight rises in the east in the morning, is located to the south at midday, and sets to the west. The applicants dwelling is located to their north, therefore direct sunlight would not be affected as a result of the proposed extension. A 7.2m gap between the proposed extension and the objector’s property would mean that the impact of indirect light to their property would not be considered unacceptable. 143
Page 144
(c) Concerns regarding blocking views from the upstairs window. Response: The only affected window at the side elevation of the objector’s property is a WC. This is a non-habitable room, therefore any view impacted from this is not considered to be a material consideration. (d) Concerns that the objector may lose views to the sky from their conservatory extension. Response: Views to the sky from the objector’s conservatory are not considered to be materially impacted by what has been proposed by the applicant. (e) Concerns about increased scale of the house, making them feel enclosed. A previous outbuilding was built on against their shared boundary and they are concerned what is proposed would feel this way. Response: The proposed side extension does not protrude any further from the existing rear elevation of the applicants existing dwelling. It would also be located 5.5 metres (or thereby) away from the shared boundary fence. There is therefore a sufficient gap between the proposed side extension and the objector’s site, so it is less likely to create a feeling of enclosure between the properties. (f) Concerns about loss of value to their property. Response: This is not a material planning consideration. 3 Assessment and Conclusions 3.1 The main issues to be addressed in the determination of this application include the layout, siting and design of the proposal, with an assessment of any visual and amenity impacts caused as a result. The policies contained within National Planning Framework 4 and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 are the main consideration in this case. 3.2 Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 identify that: development shall take account of the global climate and nature crises; and that development should minimise emissions and be adapted to take account of current and future climate risks. Policy 2 of the LDP2 identifies that all developments should seek to minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change. 3.3 As per the guidance detailed in the letter from the Chief Planner dated 8 February 2023, it is considered that Policy 2 of the NPF4 is not a key consideration for householder applications. As such, a quantitative assessment of emissions is not required for a planning application of this scale, and the relatively small-scale nature of this application means that there are no conflicts with the aims of Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 and Policy 2 of SLLDP2 which seek to promote developments that address the global climate emergency and nature crisis. At this time, its climate impacts are best considered through the Scottish Building Standards process rather than imposing specific constraints at the planning stage. 3.4 Policies 3, 5 and DM2 of the SLLDP2 collectively seek to ensure that all new proposals are appropriately designed and scaled, with no adverse impact on amenity. Policies 3 and 5 identify that within settlements, residential developments and those of an ancillary nature, may be considered acceptable if they do not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity and character of the area, that all development should take account of, and be integrated with the local context and built form. Policy DM2 provides specific guidance on residential alterations and extensions. Policy 16 of National Planning Framework 4 advises that householder development proposals will be supported where they: i. Do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design, and materials; and 144
Page 145
ii. Do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. 3.5 With the dwelling being located in a prominent corner location, it is considered that the proposal would have an inappropriate and overbearing visual impact upon the area due to it increasing the scale/massing at the front of the dwelling. It would be located beside the public footpath and would create an overbearing impact at this point upon the public realm, detracting from the amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal therefore does not take account of or integrate with the local context or built form as required by Policies 3 and 5 of LDP2. It would also have a detrimental impact on the character of housing in the area due to the existing dwellings prominent corner location, proposing to be enlarged to create a first floor above the existing garage at the front of the dwelling. This is considered that it would change the character of housing in the area. The overbearing nature of the extension over the garage at the front of the existing corner plot means that it would also be contrary to Policy 16 of NPF4 in this regard. 3.6 Concerns were raised due to the size of the proposal, regarding overshadowing and privacy loss due to the proposal. There would be a set of 3 windows on the first floor in a 1.7m by 1.05m (or thereby) window opening, and a smaller two window set in a 1.1m by 0.85m window opening on the rear elevation of the proposed side extension. The rear windows on the proposed extensions would be located approximately 7.2m away from the side elevation of the (no.85) neighbouring dwelling, located to its south. The neighbouring dwelling has a single window for a bathroom the first floor of its side elevation, which is not a habitable room. 3.7 On the front extension over the garage, one windows is located looking out from a non- habitable ensuite bathroom. The windows proposed to the west, look out over the applicants relatively small side garden, and onto the public realm at Mote Hill Road. A Juliet balcony faces out from the proposed master bedroom, facing over the mono block parking area at the front of the applicants dwelling, towards the neighbouring properties (no.81’s) front curtilage, and onto Mote Hill. Within South Lanarkshire’s existing guidance, a recommended distance between windows directly facing habitable rooms is 18 meters. The proposal would meet this as the windows on the rear of the side extension do not face onto a habitable room at the neighbouring property. The proposal therefore is not considered to result in a detrimental effect on overlooking, in regard to that aspect of Policy 16 of NPF4 when looking at the potential loss of privacy. 3.8 The proposed choice of materials for the development includes a buff brick for the external wall, Mosborough red Marley Mendip style roof tiles, grey uPVC windows and doors that match the existing dwelling. Grey colour soffits and fascia are proposed, deviating slightly from the existing brown colour facias, and white coloured roof soffits. The applicant seeks to update all the facias and soffits to be grey in colour. The material choices proposed are- seen to substantially match the existing dwelling with some deviations in this regard, are not considered to materially change the visual character of the dwelling as a result of the application. 3.9 The concerns with the proposal were raised with the applicant but they were unwilling to alter the proposal to make it acceptable. The application therefore requires to be determined based on the plans that have been submitted. 3.10 Overall, although the proposed development meets some of the criteria of relevant policies contained within the Development Plan, it does not meet all of them. The proposal would extend the existing garage at the front of the dwelling in a way that is considered to be overbearing and visually dominant, thereby detracting from the visual amenity of the surrounding area. As a result, it is not acceptable in planning terms and is recommended for refusal. 145
Page 146
4 Reasons for refusal 1. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area due to the scale, massing and design of the proposal. This is further exacerbated by its proximity to the public footpath adjacent to the site. The proposal would be physically overbearing and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM2 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 2. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area due to the scale, massing and design of the proposal. This is further exacerbated by its proximity to the public footpath adjacent to the site. The proposal would be physically overbearing and is therefore contrary to Policy 16 of National Planning Framework 4. 5 Reason for decision The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area due to the scale, design and massing creating an unacceptable and overbearing impact. It would detrimentally impact the character of the area as a result of the prominent corner location. Therefore, the proposal is not compliant with Policy 16 of NPF4, Policies 3, 5 and DM2 of LDP2 nor South Lanarkshire’s guidance regarding development at a dwellinghouse. Due to being contrary to both national and local policy, this application is recommended for refusal. Delegating officer: Bernard Darroch Date: 23 June 2025 Previous references ♦ P/24/1415 Erection of garden room (In retrospect) List of background papers Further information in relation to the application can be found online: P/25/0470 | Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► Consultations: None ► Representations: Mrs oi wan tsang Dated: 30/04/2025 Simon Chu Dated: 07/05/2025 ► National Planning Framework 4 ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 ► Supporting Planning Guidance – Development at a Dwellinghouse (November 2022) Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Michael Farquharson, Planning officer, Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 07551 839698 Email: Michael.Farquharson@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 146
Page 147
Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status A Location Plan approved Existing Layout L(--)001 approved Proposed Layout L(--)002 approved Existing & Proposed Elevations L(--)003 approved 147
Page 148
148
Page 149
Representations Representation From Dated Mrs Oi Wan Tsang No date Mrs Oi Wan Tsang No date Simon Chu 07/05/25 Appendix 2(b) 4c 149
Page 150
150
Page 151
Comments for Planning Application P/25/0470 Application Summary Application Number: P/25/0470 Address: 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Proposal: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Case Officer: Michael Farquharson Customer Details Name: Mrs Oi Wan Tsang Address: 85 Mote Hill Hamilton ML36EA Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Blocks gap view of sky from mostly used conservative sitting position that faces that direction causing individual sitting to feel upset due to feeling enclosed. Outside garden area sitting area feels further enclosed due to blocked sky view. 4c 151
Page 152
Comments for Planning Application P/25/0470 Application Summary Application Number: P/25/0470 Address: 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Proposal: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Case Officer: Michael Farquharson Customer Details Name: Mrs Oi Wan Tsang Address: 85 Mote Hill Hamilton ML36EA Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Proposed extension completely blocks view of upper floor hallway window. 152
Page 153
From: Simon Chu Date: Wed, 7 May 2025, 08:51 Subject: REF : P/25/0470. Object on plans of 83 Mote Hill work. Michael Farquharson To: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Dear Michael Farquharson, REF : P/25/0470 I am writing in regards to the proposed building application of the above reference number. We are the neighbours located in no. 85 Mote Hill and would like to submit an objection to the application with the following reasons : 1) Having a large structure will harm the value of our property due to increased loss of privacy of their new upstairs bedroom window overlooking directly into the hallway and into the upstairs toilet. 2) Morning sunlight may be blocked coming in. If privacy becomes significant then blinds may need to be installed making the staircase dark. The light coming into the staircase from the window is an important aspect for the safety of my elderly aunt coming down and up the stairs. Loss of light may cause elderly Mrs Oi Wan Tsang to fall down the stairs If no permanent shut blinds are installed then we have also lost our privacy entering and exiting the main bathroom in our nightwear. The window overlooking into our hallway is not in an assessable location to turn blinds open and shut as it would not be safe to do so high up above the staircase and in my opinion designed to permanently let natural sunlight in which may be reduced with the 2 storey extension. 3) The completely blocked view from upstairs will further reduce our value as the house will feel further enclosed from upstairs as the view will be significantly limited, there will be less natural daylight and importantly no privacy from the hallway as mentioned earlier (plans show their window looking directly in) 4) Our conservatory and sitting position overlooks directly at the sky which their large extension will block. The lost of view will impact the quality of our time spent regularly in the conservatory. 5) The increased structure size makes us feel further enclosed when they have already knocked down their conservatory and built a solid walled extension in place of it without notification couple of months ago. This solid walled extension with tiled roof is shaped 153
Page 154
like the old conservatory but feels higher and bigger within a metre of the boundary fence. The new plans appear to automatically retroactively incorporate the recent extension work in place of the old conservatory yet no application or notification was received (as can be seen by the plans where a full solid wall is facing us within a metre of the boundary yet the old conservatory was a light structure with glass all round). In any case, it is my opinion that the proposed submitted plans do not match what is currently in place as there is no conservatory there now. This is further exacerbated when a garden structure was also built prior to the conservatory to extension work and we felt unable to react in time because it was built without notification making it hard for us to submit objection to a structure well under construction and then fully built. The garden structure has stressed my aunt to the extent that our blinds are half closed to reduce the sight of the structure as the appearance of it from the neighbours sides appears like an ugly dark metal shipping container (paneling was only placed facing 83 mote hill and not all the way round) Construction from conservatory to extension was also built without notification soon after the garden structure and the imposing solid wall close to our property has also stressed my aunt, we are unsure whether permission retroactive or otherwise is required but assume that the proposed plans is either incorrect or include it retroactively as a "conservatory" as part of the 2 storey permission as shown by the new solid wall facing us close to the border. My aunt says she feels like living next to a bunker where the conservatory used to be, a shipping container at the corner and then an imposing castle if the 2 storey extension is built. The retroactive permission for the other garden structure was hard to object despite the stress as we find it difficult to cause issues to something already built. The same thing was done to us with the extension in place of the conservatory and again no avenue is in place for objection. The unscheduled work of the previous recent work of the conservatory to extension and garden structure has upset Mrs Oi Wan Tsang who is my aunt, the owner and elderly resident of 85 Mote Hill, The construction of the even larger double storey structure will surely cause further stress We would like to invite you to visit our property to look at these issues where it will be 154
Page 155
easier for you to understand and we are available any time and day. Please contact me via this email or mobile at . Yours sincerely, Simon Chu (Nephew of owner and resident of 85 Mote Hill) 155
Page 156
156
Page 157
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 4d 157
Page 158
158
Page 159
4d 159
Page 160
Photo A Looking east 160
Page 161
161
Page 162
Photo C Looking southeast 162
Page 163
Photo D Looking southwest 163
Page 164
Photo E Looking west 164
Page 165
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 4e 165
Page 166
166
Page 167
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email Michael.Farquharson@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07551839698 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Khrum Syed KS Architectural Suite 01 Saffronhall Studios 2 Saffronhall Lane Hamilton ML3 6LS Our Ref: P/25/0470 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Michael Farquharson Date: 23 June 2025 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Site address: 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA, Application no: P/25/0470 I would advise you that the above application was refused by the Council and I enclose the decision notice which sets out the reasons for refusal. Please note that the Council does not issue paper plans with the decision notice. The application is refused in accordance with the plans and any other documentation listed in the reasons for refusal imposed on the accompanying decision notice and which can be viewed using the Council’s online planning application search at https://publicaccess.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/online-applications/ If you consider that you can overcome the reasons for refusal and that it is not the principle of the development that is unacceptable, you may submit an amended application. If you do amend your proposals and re-apply within one year of this refusal, then you will not have to pay a fee, provided the proposal is of the same character or description as the application which has just been refused. As your application has been refused, you may appeal against the decision within 3 months of the date of the decision notice. The attached notes explain how you may appeal. Should you have any enquiries relating to the refusal of your application or a potential amended submission, please contact Michael Farquharson on 07551839698 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 4e 167
Page 168
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr Naveed Ahmad Per: Khrum Syed 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA, KS Architectural, Suite 01 Saffronhall Studios , 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS, With reference to your application received on 25.04.2025 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Site location: 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA, SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the above development in accordance with the plan(s) specified in this decision notice and the particulars given in the application, for the reason(s) listed overleaf in the paper apart. Date: 23rd June 2025 Head of Planning and Regulatory Services This permission does not grant any consent for the development that may be required under other legislation, e.g. Building Warrant or Roads Construction Consent. South Lanarkshire Council Community and Enterprise Resources Planning and Regulatory Services Application no. P/25/0470 168
Page 169
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/25/0470 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area due to the scale, massing and design of the proposal. This is further exacerbated by its proximity to the public footpath adjacent to the site. The proposal would be physically overbearing and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM2 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 02. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area due to the scale, massing and design of the proposal. This is further exacerbated by its proximity to the public footpath adjacent to the site. The proposal would be physically overbearing and is therefore contrary to Policy 16 of National Planning Framework 4. Reason(s) for decision The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area due to the scale, design and massing creating an unacceptable and overbearing impact. It would detrimentally impact the character of the area as a result of the prominent corner location. Therefore, the proposal is not compliant with Policy 16 of NPF4, Policies 3, 5 and DM2 of LDP2 nor South Lanarkshire's guidance regarding development at a dwellinghouse. Due to being contrary to both national and local policy, this application is recommended for refusal. 169
Page 170
Notes to applicant Application number: P/25/0470 Important The following notes do not form a statutory part of this decision notice. However, it is recommended that you study them closely as they contain other relevant information. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status A Location Plan Refused Existing Layout L(--)001 Refused Proposed Layout L(--)002 Refused Existing _ Proposed Elevations L(--)003 Refused 170
Page 171
Important notes Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 1. Compliance with conditions Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (Section 145), failure to comply with any condition(s) imposed on any planning permission may result in the service by the Council of a “Breach of Condition Notice” requiring compliance with the said condition(s). There is no right of appeal against such a Notice and failure to comply with the terms of the Notice within the specified time limit will constitute a summary offence, liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1000. 2. Procedure for appeal to the planning authority (a) If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the planning authority 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 (Scotland) Act 1997, within three months from the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Administration and Legal Services Council Headquarters Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA To obtain the appropriate forms: Administration and Legal Services at the above address. Telephone: 07385 370 117 E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk (b) If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions, whether by the planning authority or by the Scottish Ministers, 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 incapable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, he may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of his interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 171
Page 172
172
Page 173
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant Naveed Ahmad Appendix 5 4f 173
Page 174
174
Page 175
Notice of Review Form Page 1 of 6 For official use: NOR/ _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ Date received by PLRB: _ _ / _ _ / _ _ 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 2013 The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 This notice requires to be served on the Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of the decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application which is set as 2 months following the validation date of the application 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 complete in BLOCK CAPITALS Applicant(s) Name: Mr Naveed Ahmad Address: Postcode: 83 Mote Hill Hamilton South Lanarkshire ML3 6EA Contact Telephone 1: Contact Telephone 2: Fax No: E-mail:* Agent (if any) Name: Khrum Syed Address: Postcode: KS Architectural Suite 01 Saffronhall Studios 2 Saffronhall Lane Hamilton ML3 6LS Contact Telephone 1: Contact Telephone 2: Fax No: E-mail:* Mark this box to confirm that all contact should be through this representative: X * Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? Yes X No Application reference number: P / 2 5 / 0 4 7 0 Site address: 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6LS Description of proposed development: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations Validation date of application: 30/04/2025 Date of decision (if any): 23/06/2025 4f 175
Page 176
Notice of Review Form Page 2 of 6 Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) X 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 requesting review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer X 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 In cases where the Planning Local Review Body considers that it has sufficient information, including the Notice of Review, the decision notice, report of handling and any further representations from interested parties, it may, under Regulation 12, proceed to determine the review. It is anticipated that the majority of cases the Planning Local Review Body deals with will fall into this category. The Planning 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 it 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. Although the Planning Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review, you can indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you consider 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 3. Site inspection X 2. One or more hearing sessions X 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: We believe a hearing session and site inspection are appropriate in this case due to the specific nature of the refusal reasons, which relate to perceived issues of visual prominence, scale, massing, and relationship to the streetscape at this particular corner location. A site inspection will allow the Local Review Body to appreciate first-hand the topography of Mote Hill, the existing built context, and the relative prominence of adjacent properties (particularly No. 101), all of which materially affect how the proposed extension will be perceived in situ. We also believe a hearing session would assist the Review Body in considering supporting visuals and design rationale. This would allow for discussion and clarification of: • The design decisions that ensure subordination of form and minimal visual impact; • The use of matching materials and integration with neighbouring development; • The unchanged building line and the limited impact of the proposed height increase; • Precedent of similar extensions in Mote Hill, including one previously approved nearby. These matters are central to assessing compliance with Policy 16 of NPF4 and Policies 3, 5, and DM2 of SLLDP2. A hearing session would ensure a fair, informed and context-sensitive determination. 176
Page 177
Notice of Review Form Page 3 of 6 Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? Yes No X 2. Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? X If there are reasons why you think the Planning Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: Part of the proposed extension is behind the side fence of the property. With short notice the client can unlock the side gate to the property to allow access. 177
Page 178
Notice of Review Form Page 4 of 6 Statement of reasons for requiring the review You must state, in full, why you are requesting 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 Planning Local Review Body to consider as part of the review. If the Planning 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 statement can be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation with this form. We have provided a separate supporting statement to accompany this application. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? Yes No X 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. 178
Page 179
Notice of Review Form Page 5 of 6 List of documents and evidence 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. Supporting Statement SK001 – Supporting Plan and Images Original Planning Drawings – Refused Planning Officers Report Note: A copy of the Notice of Review, the review documents and any notice of the procedure of the review will be made available for inspection by prior appointment (Phone: 08457 406080) at the office of Planning and Building Standards Services, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB until such time as the review is determined. It may also be made available on the Council’s website. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm that you have provided all supporting documents and evidence relevant to your review: X Full completion of all parts of this form X Statement of your reasons for requiring a review 2 copies of all documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (eg planning application form, plans and drawings, decision notice or other documents) which are now the subject of this review. Note. Where the review relates to a further application, eg 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 planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Signed: Khrum Syed Date: 01/09/2025 This form and 2 copies of all supporting documents should be sent to:- Planning and Regulatory Services Community and Enterprise Resources, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA 179
Page 180
Notice of Review Form Page 6 of 6 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 0303 123 1015 For more information or if you want this information in a different format or language, please phone 01698 455379 or send email to planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk For official use Date stamp) 180
Page 181
KS Architectural Saffronhall Studios, 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS T: 01698 598 849 E: info@ksarchitectural.co.uk W; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk Application to South Lanarkshire Council Appeal for the refusal of Planning Permission P/25/0470 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA Erection of two-storey side extension, first-floor extension above garage, and associated alterations 181
Page 182
KS Architectural Saffronhall Studios, 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS T: 01698 598 849 E: info@ksarchitectural.co.uk W; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk 1. Introduction This statement is submitted in support of an appeal against the refusal of planning application P/25/0470 by South Lanarkshire Council. The application sought consent for a two-storey side extension and first-floor extension above an existing garage at 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton. The proposal was refused on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on visual amenity due to scale, massing, and design, particularly in relation to its corner position and proximity to the public footpath. This appeal provides a detailed and structured response to those concerns and demonstrates that the proposal is modest, subordinate, well-integrated, and consistent with both planning policy and the local context. 2. Response to Planning Officer’s Assessment (Section 3 of Delegated Report) We have structured our response to directly address each relevant paragraph from Section 3 of the Planning Officer’s Delegated Report. 3.5 – Visual Impact and Corner Location The proposed extension does not alter the footprint of the building at the public edge. The first-floor addition is built above the existing garage, and the distance to the footpath remains unchanged. The only additional footprint is at the south-west corner, fully enclosed within the rear garden and screened by existing fencing. The proposed extension features a hipped roof, designed to be 0.4 metres lower than the main ridge, to reduce massing and maintain a visually subordinate relationship to the main house. As shown in Drawing SK001 – Image 01, No. 101 — located across the street 182
Page 183
KS Architectural Saffronhall Studios, 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS T: 01698 598 849 E: info@ksarchitectural.co.uk W; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk on the opposite corner — has a higher ridge line due to the sloping nature of the terrain. It presents a full-height two-storey gable directly to the street and is more visually prominent on approach than the proposed hipped-roof extension at No. 83. Drawing SK001 – Image 02 demonstrates that the proposal remains in line with the frontage of No. 71, respecting the established building line and avoiding any forward projection into the streetscape. The proposal is therefore proportionate and contextually appropriate, and the corner location is not uniquely sensitive within the estate. 3.6 & 3.7 – Privacy and Overlooking The proposal complies fully with South Lanarkshire’s privacy guidance. Windows have been carefully located to avoid direct overlooking of any habitable spaces in neighbouring properties. The Juliet balcony faces the applicant’s own frontage and does not compromise the privacy of any adjacent garden or room. The Planning Officer correctly noted that no privacy or amenity concerns arise and that standard separation distances are achieved. 183
Page 184
KS Architectural Saffronhall Studios, 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS T: 01698 598 849 E: info@ksarchitectural.co.uk W; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk 3.8 – Materials The proposal uses materials that are consistent with and complementary to the existing house: buff brick, Mosborough Red Marley Mendip roof tiles, and grey uPVC windows and doors. The soffits and fascias will be updated to grey, replacing the current white and brown finishes. This will be done in phases, leading to a unified and modernised appearance. This approach is in keeping with other modernised properties within the Mote Hill estate, where similar material updates have already taken place. As such, the proposal will not appear materially different or incongruous, but rather in line with the ongoing evolution of the estate’s character. 3.10 – Summary and Recommendation for Refusal Drawing SK001 – Image 03 shows a similar two-storey extension within Mote Hill that was previously approved and built to a comparable scale. This establishes clear precedent and demonstrates consistency in policy interpretation. The proposed extension at No. 83 is less visually prominent than No. 101, which features a two-storey gable at a higher elevation. In contrast, the proposed design adopts a hipped roof and a lower ridge line, reducing overall impact. The extension does not alter the streetscape or building line and sits comfortably between two existing dwellings without projecting forward or dominating the corner plot. The refusal fails to acknowledge the site topography, the modest nature of the proposed works, and the presence of similar developments nearby. 184
Page 185
KS Architectural Saffronhall Studios, 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS T: 01698 598 849 E: info@ksarchitectural.co.uk W; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk The proposal is fully compatible with the aims of NPF4 Policy 16 and Policies 3, 5, and DM2 of the South Lanarkshire LDP2. 3. Conclusion This appeal demonstrates that the proposal: - Does not increase the footprint on the front elevation; the extension above the existing garage retains the same building line and relationship to the street, with only the height increasing. - The front of the property therefore remains cohesive, and the extension integrates into the existing structure without projecting toward the public realm. - The only increase in footprint occurs to the rear/side, fully contained within the fenced boundary of the private garden, with no impact on the public street or footpath. - On approach up Mote Hill, the elevation and street rhythm are unaffected — as evidenced by SK001 – Image 01 — and the proposed extension reads as a natural continuation of the dwelling. - The proposal respects neighbouring amenity, avoids overlooking, and adopts a lower hipped roof to minimise bulk and maintain subordination. - The design reflects a pattern of approved development within Mote Hill and uses materials that match and complement the surrounding built form. The planning refusal does not accurately reflect the physical context or the modest, policy-compliant nature of the proposal. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Local Review Body overturn the decision and grant planning permission. 185
Page 186
KS Architectural Saffronhall Studios, 2 Saffronhall Lane, Hamilton, ML3 6LS T: 01698 598 849 E: info@ksarchitectural.co.uk W; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk 4. Supporting Documents Drawing SK001 – Image 01: Road approach from north-east, showing the proposed extension outline in blue and relative prominence of No. 101 Drawing SK001 – Image 02: Plan view with red dashed line showing alignment with No. 71’s building line Drawing SK001 – Image 03: Image of similar two-storey extension within Mote Hill that was previously approved Refusal Documents: A copy of the planning refused planning drawings including the planning officers report. Yours Sincerely, Khrum Syed KS Architectural 186
Page 187
LAYOUT architectural KS ARCHITECTURAL SAFFRONHALL STUDIOS 2 SAFFRONHALL LANE HAMILTON, ML3 6LS t; 07900 238 615 e; info@ksarchitectural.co.uk w; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk DRAWING REV ISSUE DATE DRAWING STATUS Work to figured dimensions only; do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to fabrication. Read in conjunction with all other relevant drawings, specifications and schedules PROJECT DRAWING TITLE NOTES & REVISIONS CLIENT A3 SK001 *Information to support appeal July 2025 Streetscape Erection of a two storey extension & Internal alterationsNaveed Ahmad 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Image 01 The road approach toward the application site (No. 83) is shown with the proposed extension outlined in blue. From this view, it can be seen that No. 101 occupies a higher position due to the sloping nature of the terrain in Mote Hill. As a result, the ridge line of No. 101 is higher than both the existing dwelling at No. 83 and the proposed extension Image 02 Provides a plan view indicating — with the use of a red dashed line — that the proposed extension at No. 83 remains in line with the frontage of the existing two-storey dwelling at No. 71, which precedes it in sequence along the street. Image 03 Shows a similar two-storey extension within Mote Hill itself, which was previously approved and built to a comparable scale and form 187
Page 188
83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA © Crown copyright and database rights 2024 OS 100054135. Map area bounded by: 272174,655822 272316,655964. Produced on 20 November 2024 from the OS National Geographic Database. Supplied by UKPlanningMaps.com. Unique plan reference: p2f/uk/1177386/1582365 188
Page 189
Work to figured dimensions only; do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to fabrication. Read in conjunction with all other relevant drawings, specifications and schedules LAYOUT architectural KS ARCHITECTURAL SAFFRONHALL STUDIOS 2 SAFFRONHALL LANE HAMILTON, ML3 6LS t; 07900 238 615 e; info@ksarchitectural.co.uk w; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk DRAWING REV ISSUE DATE DRAWING STATUS PROJECT DRAWING TITLE NOTES & REVISIONS A2 L(--)001 * CLIENT Existing Ground Floor Plan scale 1:100 @ a2 Existing First Floor Plan scale 1:100 @ a2 North EastWest South Planning Permission 25th April 2025 Existing Layout Erection of a two storey extension & Internal alterationsNaveed Ahmad 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA 0 5 scale bar (1:100) metres Existing Site Areas Overall site = 536m2 Total developed area house = 147.0m2 Garden Room = 23.3m2 % site coverage = 31.2%Site Boundary Key Mote Hill Mote Hill Neighbouring Property Neighbouring Property Existing Site Layout scale 1:200 @ a2 Garden Room North East West South Existing Roofplan scale 1:200 @ a2 0 105 scale bar (1:200) metres 0 105 scale bar (1:200) metres Dining Conservatory Living Room Up Kitchen Patio doors BathroomUtilityW.C Garage Storage Entrance Hall Front door Bedroom 01 En-Suite Bathroom Bedroom 02 Bedroom 03 Bedroom 04 Hallway Arrows indicate direction of roof-fall 189
Page 190
1580 3587 3058 3916 3335 6148 3098 2316 13717 600 3335 5093 3000 912 Work to figured dimensions only; do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to fabrication. Read in conjunction with all other relevant drawings, specifications and schedules LAYOUT architectural KS ARCHITECTURAL SAFFRONHALL STUDIOS 2 SAFFRONHALL LANE HAMILTON, ML3 6LS t; 07900 238 615 e; info@ksarchitectural.co.uk w; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk DRAWING REV ISSUE DATE DRAWING STATUS PROJECT DRAWING TITLE NOTES & REVISIONS A2 L(--)002 * CLIENT 0 5 scale bar (1:100) metres Proposed Ground Floor Plan scale 1:100 @ a2 Proposed First Floor Plan scale 1:100 @ a2 North EastWest South Planning Permission 25th April 2025 Proposed Layout Erection of a two storey extension & Internal alterationsNaveed Ahmad 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Study Bedroom 05 Bedroom 06 En-suite Walk in wardrobe En-suite Hall Store 0 5 scale bar (1:100) metres Proposed extension and internal alterations Kitchen/ Dining BathroomUtility Hallway Double glazed doors and Juliet balcony Roof of bay window below wardrobeenlarged wardrobe Accommodation Schedule Room Area (m²) Area (ft²) Enlarged Kitchen 37.0 m² 398 ft² Bedroom 06 22.0 m² 237 ft² Bedroom 06 En Suite 5.0 m² 54 ft² Bedroom 06 Walk-In Wardrobe 4.0 m² 43 ft² Bedroom 05 15.0 m² 161 ft² Bedroom 05 En Suite 4.0 m² 43 ft² Study 6.0 m² 65 ft² Mote Hill Mote Hill Neighbouring Property Neighbouring Property North East West South Proposed Site Areas Overall site = 536m2 Total developed area house = 170.0m2 Garden Room = 23.3m2 % site coverage = 36.0%Site Boundary Key Proposed Site Layout scale 1:200 @ a2 Proposed Roofplan scale 1:200 @ a2 0 105 scale bar (1:200) metres Proposed Materials To ensure a seamless extension, the following materials are proposed: Roof Tiles: Marley Mendip style, likely Mosborough Red, to match existing Brickwork: Buff brick to match the existing – possibly Ibstock Buff Rustic Windows and Doors: Grey to match existing finishes Soffits and Fascias: Grey – existing house to be updated over time to match Juliet Balcony: Frameless all-glass installation to the new bedroom above the garage Up Entrance Hall W.C Dining Conservatory Living Room Garage Storage Front door Hallway Arrows indicate direction of roof-fall 190
Page 191
Work to figured dimensions only; do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to fabrication. Read in conjunction with all other relevant drawings, specifications and schedules LAYOUT architectural KS ARCHITECTURAL SAFFRONHALL STUDIOS 2 SAFFRONHALL LANE HAMILTON, ML3 6LS t; 07900 238 615 e; info@ksarchitectural.co.uk w; www.ksarchitectural.co.uk DRAWING REV ISSUE DATE DRAWING STATUS PROJECT DRAWING TITLE NOTES & REVISIONS A2 L(--)003 * CLIENT Planning Permission 25th April 2025 Existing & Proposed Elevations Erection of a two storey extension & Internal alterationsNaveed Ahmad 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Existing Front Elevation (Facing North) scale 1:100 @ a2 Existing Rear Elevation (Facing South) scale 1:100 @ a2 Existing Side Elevation (Facing East) scale 1:100 @ a2 Existing Side Elevation (Facing West) scale 1:100 @ a2 Proposed Front Elevation (Facing North) scale 1:100 @ a2 Proposed Rear Elevation (Facing South) scale 1:100 @ a2 Proposed Side Elevation (Facing East) scale 1:100 @ a2 Proposed Side Elevation (Facing West) scale 1:100 @ a2 0 5 scale bar (1:100) metres Proposed extension Proposed Materials Roof Tiles: Marley Mendip style, likely Mosborough Red, to match existing Brickwork: Buff brick to match the existing – possibly Ibstock Buff Rustic Windows and Doors: Grey to match existing finishes Soffits and Fascias: Grey – existing house to be updated over time to match Juliet Balcony: Frameless all-glass installation to the new bedroom above the garage 191
Page 192
The report of handling is included at Appendix 2(a) of the review documents 192
Page 193
Further Representations Further Representations From Simon Chu Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 4g 193
Page 194
194
Page 195
Date: 18th September 2025 Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Local Review Body: Response to Notice for Review Proposal: Erection of two storey side extension, first floor extension above garage and associated alterations at 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton, ML3 6EA. Applicant: Site address: Mr Naveed Ahmad 83 Mote Hill Hamilton ML3 6EA Application no: P/25/0470 1.1 In respect to the Statement of Case for this Notice of Review, the report of handling associated with P/25/0470 provides a detailed assessment of all material planning considerations associated with this appeal. The Planning Authority requests that this document is referred to in terms of the Notice of Review. 2.1 Furthermore, in response to the appellants submission we would offer the following: 2.2 The appellant disputes the assessment concluding that there is precent shown in SK001 – Image 01, No.101 that is located across the street on the opposite corner and has a higher ridgeline due to the sloping nature of the terrain. It presents a full height two storey gable directly to the street and is more visually prominent on approach than the proposed hipped roof extension at No. 83. 2.3 Response: In regard to the question of precedent, the Planning Authority looks at all cases on their own merits, while considering the context of each site. Mote Hill is a steeply sloped road; resulting in other dwellings sitting at a higher ridgeline this however does not create the conditions to allow the applicant to overdevelop the garage to the front of the dwelling. The visual prominence of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 101 is far less noticeable than the first-floor extension that is being proposed. The neighbouring dwelling is not set on the same line as the applicants dwelling (and neighbouring dwellings at no. 81 and no.71) but is instead set back further from the road than the foremost part of 4g 195
Page 196
the applicants dwelling (front elevation of the garage) and the road since it has a deeper front curtilage at this point. Policy DM2 of the SLLDP2 states that “the sitting, form, scale, design and materials (of proposals shall) respect the character of the existing dwelling and the wider area”, that the proposal? “Does not dominate or overwhelm the existing dwelling, neighbouring properties or streetscape in terms of size, scale or height.” It is important extensions are in keeping with both the original house and the context of the local area.”. The applicant has set the hipped roof of the proposed first floor garage extension to be 0.4m lower than the ridgeline of the existing dwelling, to not dominate the existing dwelling in terms of scale. However, due to the location of the garage to the front of the dwelling and it being enlarged to have a second storey, its proximity to the public path and road would lead it to dominating the streetscape in terms of its size and scale. The application is also contrary Policy 16 of NPF4, since householder applications are only supported where they “do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials”. 2.4 The appellant disputes that Drawing SK001 image 02 shows the corner location is not uniquely sensitive within the estate 2.5 Response: It may not be unique to the applicant, but it is sensitive in regard to the character of the development The Mote Hill development consists of a main through road with various roads off this reaching into cul-de-sac type layouts. All of the roads are named Mote Hill. The proposal is situated on the main road of the development and its position on the corner into a cul-de-sac is considered a sensitive location, in comparison to a dwelling situated at the end of a cul-de- sac. The application site acts as a marker point within the development. The proposed development is designed with a forward building line of the main elevation dwellinghouse is set back. Whilst the single storey garage is forward of this building line is low height still allows those to view forward and identify the turn into the cul-de-sac and read the layout of the development. Single storey garages to either the front, or side of the primary dwelling are a ‘common feature’ within the surrounding area. However, where the upwards extension to the applicant’s garage altering the character of the overall development, and at this location would sets a dangerous precedent within the development. Policy 16 of NPF4 supports householder applications when they “do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials”. As mentioned previously, the application is considered to alter the character of the overall 196
Page 197
development, due to its corner location on the main thorough fare of the development. 2.6 The appellant sets out that Drawing SK001 - Image 03 shows a similar two storey extension within Mote Hill (at number 56) that was previously approved and built to a comparable scale and this would establish precedent and demonstrates consistency in policy interpretation. 2.7 Response: The extension at no. 56 Mote Hill is not considered to be comparable to the applicants dwelling, since it is set at the end of a cul-de-sac branching off the spine road (where the applicants dwelling is located). It is therefore located in a less prominent location than the applicants, where extending the garage upwards in front of their main dwelling would constrict the road opening to the cul-de-sac which branches off from the main spine of Mote Hill. The proposal at number 56 was also assessed by a previous South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan before the introduction of the National Planning Framework 4. 3.1 In conclusion, the application site is located on the main thorough fare on Mote Hill Road, making it a prominent location within the development. Two cases of precedent have been presented by the applicant, however these would not alter the decision-making process since they are materially different circumstances. One refers to a house located at the end point of a cul-de-sac that branches off from the top of the spine road, which is a less prominent location. The second refers to an adjacent building that sits higher than the dwelling due to the differences in topography. 197
Page 198
198
Page 199
2) Morning sunlight may be blocked coming in. If privacy becomes significant then blinds may need to be installed making the staircase dark. The light coming into the staircase from the window is an important aspect for the safety of my elderly aunt coming down and up the stairs. Loss of light may cause elderly Mrs Oi Wan Tsang to fall down the stairs If no permanent shut blinds are installed then we have also lost our privacy entering and exiting the main bathroom in our nightwear. The window overlooking into our hallway is not in an assessable location to turn blinds open and shut as it would not be safe to do so high up above the staircase and in my opinion designed to permanently let natural sunlight in which may be reduced with the 2 storey extension. 3) The completely blocked view from upstairs will further reduce our value as the house will feel further enclosed from upstairs as the view will be significantly limited, there will be less natural daylight and importantly no privacy from the hallway as mentioned earlier (plans show their window looking directly in) 4) Our conservatory and sitting position overlooks directly at the sky which their large extension will block. The lost of view will impact the quality of our time spent regularly in the conservatory. 5) The increased structure size makes us feel further enclosed when they have already knocked down their conservatory and built a solid walled extension in place of it without notification couple of months ago. This solid walled extension with tiled roof is shaped like the old conservatory but feels higher and bigger within a metre of the boundary fence. The new plans appear to automatically retroactively incorporate the recent extension work in place of the old conservatory yet no application or notification was received (as can be seen by the plans where a full solid wall is facing us within a metre of the boundary yet the old conservatory was a light structure with glass all round). In any case, it is my opinion that the proposed submitted plans do not match what is currently in place as there is no conservatory there now. This is further exacerbated when a garden structure was also built prior to the conservatory to extension work and we felt unable to react in time because it was built without notification making it hard for us to submit objection to a structure well under construction and then fully built. The garden structure has stressed my aunt to the extent that our blinds are half closed to reduce the sight of the structure as the appearance of it from the neighbours sides appears like an ugly dark metal shipping container (paneling was only placed facing 83 mote hill and not all the way round) Construction from conservatory to extension was also built without notification soon after the garden structure and the imposing solid wall close to our property has also stressed my aunt, we are unsure whether permission retroactive or otherwise is required but assume that the proposed plans is either incorrect or include it retroactively as a "conservatory" as part of the 2 storey permission as shown by the new solid wall facing us close to the 199
Page 200
200
Page 201
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representations Submitted by an Interested Party and Planning and Regulatory Services in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 4h 201
Page 202
202
Page 203
From: To: McLeod, Stuart Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - P/25/0470 – 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton Date: 06 October 2025 09:28:10 Attachments: image002.png Dear Stuart, Re: Planning Local Review Body - P/25/0470 – 83 Mote Hill, Hamilton Thank you for your previous email. We acknowledge receipt of the further representations submitted in response to the Notice of Review, including the statement from the Planning Authority and the submission from the neighbouring property at No. 85 Mote Hill. We would like to confirm that we do not intend to provide any further comment, as we are satisfied that all relevant planning considerations — including those now raised — have already been fully addressed within our original Supporting Statement and supporting documentation (including Drawing SK001). In particular, we do not believe the neighbour’s submission raises any new or valid planning issues that would materially affect the assessment of the proposal under the relevant policies. Matters of overshadowing, privacy, character, and amenity were carefully considered in our appeal and design approach. Should the Local Review Body require clarification on any specific points, we remain happy to respond if requested. Kind Regards, Khrum Syed 4h 203
Page 204
204