Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 23/02/2026
South Lanarkshire Council · 23 February 2026
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 23 February 2026 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, 13 February 2026 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, 23 February 2026 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 26 January 2026 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 5 - 8 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case – Application P/25/0185 for Change of Use From Cattery to Residential Annex (Further Application Under Regulation 11) at Maythorne Cottage, Thorn Highway, Chapelton, Strathaven Report dated 9 February 2026 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 9 - 12 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/25/0185 13 - 22 3b Appendix 2 Report of Handling P/25/0185 23 - 34 3c Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/25/0185 35 - 42 3d Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/25/0185 43 - 50 3e Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/25/0185 51 - 64 4 Review of Case – Application P/25/0603 for Erection of Double Garage at Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall Report dated 9 February 2026 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 65 - 68 4a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/25/0603 69 - 76 4b Appendix 2 Report of Handling P/25/0603 77 - 82 4c Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/25/0603 83 - 92 4d Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/25/0603 93 - 100 4e Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/25/0603 101 - 122 4f Appendix 6 Further Representation P/25/0603 123 - 128 5 Review of Case – Application P/25/0448 for Erection of Dwelling House with Associated Access and Off-Street Parking at New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark Report dated 9 February 2026 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 129 - 132 5a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/25/0448 133 - 142 5b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/25/0448 143 - 154 5c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/25/0448 155 - 160 2
Page 3
5d Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/25/0448 161 - 168 5e Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/25/0448 169 - 176 5f Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/25/0448 177 - 234 5g Appendix 6 Further Representation P/25/0448 235 - 248 5h Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representations P/25/0448 249 - 256 Urgent Business 6 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Tracy Slater Clerk Telephone: 07385 370 089 Clerk Email: tracy.slater@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of meeting held via Confero and in Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 26 January 2026. Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Colin Dewar, Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Councillor Cal Johnston-Dempsey, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Graham Scott, Councillor David Shearer Councillor’s Apology: Councillor Lesley McDonald 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; T Slater, Administration Adviser 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 24 November 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/23/1611 for Installation of 3 Wind Turbines (Maximum 150 Metre to Blade Tip Height) and Formation of Associated Access Tracks, Crane Pads, Electrical Housing and Hardstanding Areas at Land 1.5km South Southwest of East Merkland Farm, High Kype Road, Strathaven A report dated 12 January 2026 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/23/1611 by Clean Earth Energy Limited for the installation of 3 wind turbines (maximum 150 metre to blade tip height) and formation of associated access tracks, crane pads, electrical housing and hardstanding areas at land 1.5km south southwest of East Merkland Farm, High Kype Road, Strathaven. 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 2 5
Page 6
site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submissions from interested parties and Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the further submissions 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 procedural matters, should the PLRB decide to reverse the decision to refuse the application:- as both NATS (National Air Traffic Services) and Glasgow Airport confirmed that their objections and concerns in relation to air safety remained, the decision would be subject to referral to Scottish Ministers to provide them with the opportunity to call in the application for their own determination in addition to any suitable conditions that would require to be agreed, planning permission should also be subject to:- a Section 75 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 between the applicant and the Council to ensure the payment of community contributions to the Council’s Renewable Energy Fund, or a similar appropriate mechanism a Section 96 legal agreement under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 between the applicant and the Council to ensure that a bond was in place in relation to any damage to roads infrastructure The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested a hearing session, however, on the basis of the above, 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 installation of 3 wind turbines (maximum 150 metre to blade tip height) and formation of associated access tracks, crane pads, electrical housing and hardstanding areas at the proposed location and it would not accord with the Development Plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 13 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/23/1611 by Clean Earth Energy Limited for the installation of 3 wind turbines (maximum 150 metre to blade tip height) and formation of associated access tracks, crane pads, electrical housing and hardstanding areas at land 1.5km south southwest of East Merkland Farm, High Kype Road, Strathaven be upheld. 6
Page 7
4 Review of Case – Application P/25/0651 for Erection of 2 Detached Dwellings, Access and Associated Works at Turlood Equestrian Centre, Lesmahagow A report dated 12 January 2026 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of planning application P/25/0651 by Mr and Mrs B and K Stewart for the erection of 2 detached dwellings, access and associated works at Turlood Equestrian Centre, Lesmahagow. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form representations from consultees site photographs and location plan 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 submissions received from Planning and Regulatory Services As the application had not been determined by Planning and Regulatory Services (deemed refusal), no report of handling was available in respect of the application. To facilitate the review and comply with the statutory timescale, the Head of Administration and Legal Services, in consultation with the Chair, had asked for observations from Planning and Regulatory Services on the notice of review to be provided in advance of the meeting. The applicant had been given the opportunity to comment on those observations. The submission from Planning and Regulatory Services and the applicant’s comments had also been appended to the report. 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 considered whether there was valid policy justification to support the erection of 2 detached dwellings, access and associated works at the proposed location and concluded that it was contrary to Policies 16 and 17 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 4 and GBRA10 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. The PLRB decided: that planning application P/25/0651 by Mr and Mrs B and K Stewart for the erection of 2 detached dwellings, access and associated works at Turlood Equestrian Centre, Lesmahagow be refused for reasons determined by the PLRB, attached as an appendix to this minute. 5 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 7
Page 8
Application P/25/0651 – Reasons for Refusal Appendix Erection of 2 detached dwellings, access and associated works at Turlood Equestrian Centre, Lesmahagow. 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 17 of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as it has not been demonstrated that the proposals comply with the criteria contained within the policy relating to the provision of new dwellinghouses in the countryside. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 16 of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as it does not meet the criteria for the delivery of new homes on land not allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policies 4 and GBRA10 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the proposed development has not been appropriately justified in terms of being development which would require to be located within the Rural Area. 8
Page 9
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 23 February 2026 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/25/0185 for Change of Use From Cattery to Residential Annex (Further Application Under Regulation 11) at Maythorne Cottage, Thorn Highway, Chapelton, Strathaven 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: Mr and Mrs A and L Don Proposal: Change of Use from Cattery to Residential Annex (Further Application Under Regulation 11) Location: Maythorne Cottage, Thorn Highway, Chapelton, Strathaven, ML10 6SJ Council Area/Ward: 05 – Avondale and Stonehouse 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 3 9
Page 10
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. 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) 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. 6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. No further representation(s) were received 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. 10
Page 11
Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 9 February 2026 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent We will work towards a sustainable future in sustainable places 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:- Tracy Slater, Administration Adviser Tel: 07385 370089 E-mail: tracy.slater@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 11
Page 12
12
Page 13
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 13
Page 14
14
Page 15
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 100702140-001 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 Change of use of existing cattery building to residential annex 3a 15
Page 16
Page 2 of 8 Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * David Napier Architectural Services Other Mr and Mrs David A and L Napier Don Colinhill Road Maythorn Highway 15 Maythorne Cottage 07890647208 ML10 6EU ML10 6SJ Scotland scotland Strathaven Strathaven Chapelton napierdavid1@aol.com napierdavid1@aol.com 16
Page 17
Page 3 of 8 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Pre-Application Discussion Details Cont. In what format was the feedback given? * Meeting Telephone Letter Email Please provide a description of the feedback you were given and the name of the officer who provided this feedback. If a processing agreement [note 1] is currently in place or if you are currently discussing a processing agreement with the planning authority, please provide details of this. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently.) * (max 500 characters) Title: Other title: First Name: Last Name: Correspondence Reference Date (dd/mm/yyyy): Number: Note 1. A Processing agreement involves setting out the key stages involved in determining a planning application, identifying what information is required and from whom and setting timescales for the delivery of various stages of the process. MAYTHORNE COTTAGE Planning approved on 7th March 2022 and is due to expire. Ref P/22/0081 Ms South Lanarkshire Council Evelyn-Ann CHAPELTON Wilson STRATHAVEN 02/02/2022 ML10 6SJ 649763 265680 17
Page 18
Page 4 of 8 Site Area Please state the site area: Please state the measurement type used: Hectares (ha) Square Metres (sq.m) Existing Use Please describe the current or most recent use: * (Max 500 characters) Access and Parking Are you proposing a new altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If Yes please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. Are you proposing any change to public paths, public rights of way or affecting any public right of access? * Yes No If Yes please show on your drawings the position of any affected areas highlighting the changes you propose to make, including arrangements for continuing or alternative public access. How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) currently exist on the application Site? How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) do you propose on the site (i.e. the Total of existing and any new spaces or a reduced number of spaces)? * Please show on your drawings the position of existing and proposed parking spaces and identify if these are for the use of particular types of vehicles (e.g. parking for disabled people, coaches, HGV vehicles, cycles spaces). Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. 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). 2490.00 Cattery ( Boarding ) 6 6 18
Page 19
Page 5 of 8 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. 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? * Refer to drawing No M/2021/02 1 19
Page 20
Page 6 of 8 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: David Napier On behalf of: Mr and Mrs A and L Don Date: 18/02/2025 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 20
Page 21
Page 7 of 8 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters) 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) This application has been submitted as the existing Planning consent is due to expire March 2025 Ref P/22/0081 21
Page 22
Page 8 of 8 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 Napier Declaration Date: 18/02/2025 22
Page 23
Report of Handling Report dated 10 September 2025 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2 3b 23
Page 24
24
Page 25
Reference no. P/25/0185 Delegated Report Date 10th September 2025 Planning proposal: Change of use from cattery to residential annex (Further application under Regulation 11) Location: Maythorne Cottage Thorn Highway Chapelton Strathaven ML10 6SJ Application Type : Further application Applicant : Mr and Mrs A and L Don Location : Maythorne Cottage Thorn Highway Chapelton Strathaven ML10 6SJ Decision: Other action/notes: Application refused 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 8 Green belts Policy 14 Design, quality and place Policy 16 Quality homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) Policy 2 Climate change Policy 4 Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Policy GBRA4 Conversion and Re-use of Existing Buildings Policy DM15 Water Supply Policy DM16 Foul Drainage/Sewerage Provision 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 3b 25
Page 26
Consultations None required. Representation(s): ► 0 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 26
Page 27
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The application site relates to an existing cattery within the grounds of Maythorne Cottage on Thorn Highway near Chapelton. The site is located approximately 2km south of East Kilbride and 2.7km north-west of Chapelton. The site is bound to the east by the residential property Maythorne View, to the north and west by agricultural land and to the south by Thorne Highway with agricultural land beyond. 1.2 The construction of the cattery was approved in Planning Application EK/14/0088 on 5th May 2014. The cattery is located to the west of the existing residential property and measures 13.5 metres long, 8.7 metres wide, 4 metres in height and is finished in a render matching the neighbouring residential property. The change of use of the cattery to a residential annex – Planning Application P/22/0081 was approved in February 2022, prior to the adoption of the National Planning Framework 4. 1.3 Planning History – There are a number of applications relating to this location submitted by the applicants, which include: • P/22/0081 - Change of use of existing cattery building to residential annex. Approved. • EK/16/0044 - Formation of new vehicular access to existing dwelling and erection of associated wall and gates. Approved. • EK/15/0336 - Change of use and conversion of kennels to single storey dwellinghouse and erection of double garage. Approved. • EK/14/0194 - Erection of attached double garage at existing dwellinghouse. Approved. • EK/14/0088 - Erection of cattery (boarding) Approved. • EK/12/0055 - Erection of building incorporating 12 boarding kennels, access and parking. Approved. • EK/11/0306 - Erection of side extension. Approved. • EK/07/0347 - Erection of upper storey extension incorporating 2 no. dormers and single storey side extension. Approved. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Statutory neighbour notification was completed, and the proposal was advertised in the local press in respect of non-notification of neighbours. no representations were received in response to this publicity. 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. The development plan comprises of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 29th March 2021) and the National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 13th February 2023). The applicable policies in this instance are Policies 1, 2, 8,14 and 16 of the NPF4 and Policies 2, 4, 5, GBRA4. DM15 & DM16 of the SLLDP2. 27
Page 28
Principle of Development 3.2 In terms of the principle of the proposal. Policy 8 – Green Belts of the NPF4 is applicable. This policy states that development proposals in the designated Green Belt will only be supported if they are for: • development associated with agriculture, woodland creation, forestry and existing woodland (including community woodlands); • residential accommodation required and designed for a key worker in a primary industry within the immediate vicinity of their place of employment where the presence of a worker is essential to the operation of the enterprise, or retired workers where there is no suitable alternative accommodation available; • horticulture, including market gardening and directly connected retailing, as well as community growing; • outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourism uses; and developments that provide opportunities for access to the open countryside (including routes for active travel and core paths); • flood risk management (such as development of blue and green infrastructure within a “drainage catchment” to manage/mitigate flood risk and/or drainage issues); • essential infrastructure or new cemetery provision; • minerals operations and renewable energy developments; • intensification of established uses, including extensions to an existing building where that is ancillary to the main use; • the reuse, rehabilitation and conversion of historic environment assets; or • one-for-one replacements of existing permanent homes. and ii) the following requirements are met: • reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt; • the purpose of the green belt at that location is not undermined; • the proposal is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character; • the proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible; and • there will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. 3.3 Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area of the SLLDP2 area states that development proposals must also accord with other relevant policies in the development plan. 3.4 The proposal does not meet any of the criteria in Policy 8 – Green Belts of the NPF4. Given that the development plan consists of the NPF4 and the SLLDP2, the proposal is not compliant with Policy 4 – Green Belt and Rural Area of the SLLDP2 as the proposal does not accord with the other relevant policies in the development plan. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Policy 8 of the NPF4 and Policy 4 of the SLLDP2. 28
Page 29
3.5 Policy GBRA4 - Conversion and Re-use of Existing Buildings of the SLLDP2 advises that the conversion of buildings for residential use shall be structurally capable for conversion and should not have any detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. The existing cattery building was constructed in 2014, therefore, as a relatively new structure, it would be structurally capable of conversion to a residential unit. The applicants have not submitted a supporting statement with the current application. However, in the previous application, P/22/0081, granted 3 years ago, the applicants advised that the existing cattery business was no longer viable and that the change of use would provide a residential annex for the applicant’s parents who required constant care. It is therefore not considered, given the proposed use and window positioning in the building, that the change of use would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposal is not considered to conflict with the aims of Policy GBRA4. Climate change 3.6 Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4, and Policy 2 of SLLDP2 seek to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, and which minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. No alterations to the building are proposed and it is noted that the proposal relates to residential accommodation for elderly family members and that the levels of increased vehicle journeys would be minimal. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not significantly adversely impact on climate concerns, and as such, does not conflict with the aims of Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 or with Policy 2 of SLLDP2. Layout, Siting and Design 3.7 In terms of the design and siting of the proposal, the relevant policies of NPF4 to be considered are Policies 14 – Design, quality and place and 16 – Quality homes. These policies require development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area and supports proposals where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places; healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable, and adaptable. In terms of their location, new homes will be supported on land allocated for housing in LDPs and in other specified circumstances, including where new homes improve affordability and choice or in limited circumstances where the proposal is otherwise consistent with the spatial strategy and other relevant policies. SLLDP2 Policies 5 - Development Management states that development proposals should accord with other relevant policies in the development plan. 3.8 The physical characteristic of the building, subject to the change of use, is not a material consideration in this instance as the principle is unsupportable. However, as no external alterations to the existing building are proposed, the change of use is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the surrounding character or amenity. 3.9 As the proposed change of use is to a residential dwelling, within the Green Belt, without a locational need, it cannot be considered as a sustainable location. As such, is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places and does the proposal accord with other relevant development plan policies. As such, the proposal the proposal is not considered to comply with Polices 14 and 16 of the NPF4 or Policy 5 of the SLLPD2. 29
Page 30
Technical Matters 3.10 Policy DM15 - Water Supply and Policy DM16 - Foul Drainage/Sewerage Provision of the SLLDP2 seek to ensure appropriate supply of water and wastewater services. The application form advises that the proposal would utilise the existing water and drainage connections for the existing cattery. The proposal would not raise any issues relating to Policy 15 and 16 of the SLLDP2. Conclusion 3.11 Planning consent was granted for the change of use of the existing cattery to residential accommodation in 2022. In February 2023, the National Planning Framework 4 was adopted and is part of the development plan, in conjunction with the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. In instances where there is policy conflict with the local development plan, the adopted policies of the NPF4 take precedence. Development proposals within the Green Belt are only permitted in specific circumstances and the proposed change of use of the cattery to residential accommodation does not meet any of the criteria in Policy 8 of the NPF4. Therefore, the principle of residential accommodation cannot be supported. NPF4 also places significant importance that development proposals comply with the six qualities of successful places. As the proposal does not have a locational need, in terms of Policy 8 of the NPF4, it is not considered to be sited in a sustainable or connected location. Given the above, the proposal is not considered to comply with the development plan (NPF4 and SLLDP2) and cannot be supported, therefore refusal of the application is considered justified. 4 Reason for decision 4.1 The proposal is contrary to Policies 8, 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 4 and 5 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, in that the proposed development does not meet the appropriate tests to justify a residential dwelling in the Green Belt and is not considered to be sited in a sustainable or connected location. There are no other material considerations which would justify the granting of planning permission. Delegating officer: Iain Morton Date:12 September 2025 Previous references P/22/0081 EK/16/0044 EK/15/0336 EK/14/0194 EK/14/0088 EK/12/0055 EK/11/0306 EK/07/0347 30
Page 31
List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► NPF4 ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 19.03.2025 ► Advert in newspaper dated 16.04.2025 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information on line:- P/25/0185 | Change of use from cattery to residential annex (Further application under Regulation 11) | Maythorne Cottage Thorn Highway Chapelton Strathaven ML10 6SJ Or please contact: Evelyn-Ann Wilson, Planning officer, Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 07551842952 Email: evelyn-ann.wilson@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 31
Page 32
Planning Application Application number: P/25/0185 Reasons for refusal 01. That the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 – Green Belts of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as it does not meet any of the criteria in this policy to justify residential accommodation at this location. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would not accord with other relevant policies in the development plan. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would not accord with other relevant policies in the development plan. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 - Design, Quality and Place and Policy 16 – Quality Homes of the National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places. Reason(s) for decision The proposal is contrary to Policies 8, 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 4 and 5 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, in that the proposed development does not meet the appropriate tests to justify a residential dwelling in the Green Belt and is not considered to be sited in a sustainable or connected location. There are no other material considerations which would justify the granting of planning permission. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status LOCATION AND BLOCK PLAN Refused PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 2 Refused PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION Refused PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION Refused EXISTING AND Refused 32
Page 33
PROPOSED BLOCK PLANS EXISTING PLAN Refused EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION Refused EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION 2 Refused EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION Refused EXISTING REAR ELEVATION Refused PROPOSED PLAN Refused PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Refused 33
Page 34
34
Page 35
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3c 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
3c 37
Page 38
Photo 1 looking northeast 38
Page 39
Photo 2 looking northwest 39
Page 40
Photo 3 looking northwest 40
Page 41
Photo 4 looking northwest 41
Page 42
42
Page 43
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3d 43
Page 44
44
Page 45
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email evelyn-ann.wilson@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07551842952 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services David Napier David Napier Architectural Services 15 Colinhill Road Strathaven ML10 6EU Our Ref: P/25/0185 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Evelyn-Ann Wilson Date: 18 September 2025 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Change of use from cattery to residential annex (Further application under Regulation 11) Site address: Maythorne Cottage, Thorn Highway, Chapelton, Strathaven, ML10 6SJ Application no: P/25/0185 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 Evelyn-Ann Wilson on 07551842952 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 3d 45
Page 46
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr and Mrs A and L Don Per: David Napier Maythorne Cottage, Maythorn Highway, Chapelton, Strathaven, ML10 6SJ 15 Colinhill Road, Strathaven, ML10 6EU With reference to your application received on 19.02.2025 for an application under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Change of use from cattery to residential annex (Further application under Regulation 11) Site location: Maythorne Cottage, Thorn Highway, Chapelton, Strathaven, ML10 6SJ South Lanarkshire Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: REFUSE 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: 18th September 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. Planning Permission, Building Warrant or Roads Construction Consent. South Lanarkshire Council Community and Enterprise Resources Planning and Regulatory Services Application no. P/25/0185 46
Page 47
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse permission Paper apart - Application number: P/25/0185 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. That the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 - Green Belts of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) as it does not meet any of the criteria in this policy to justify residential accommodation at this location. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would not accord with other relevant policies in the development plan. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would not accord with other relevant policies in the development plan. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 - Design, Quality and Place and Policy 16 - Quality Homes of the National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places. Reason(s) for decision The proposal is contrary to Policies 8, 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 4 and 5 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, in that the proposed development does not meet the appropriate tests to justify a residential dwelling in the Green Belt and is not considered to be sited in a sustainable or connected location. There are no other material considerations which would justify the granting of planning permission. 47
Page 48
Notes to applicant Application number: P/25/0185 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 information which guides you to other relevant matters. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status LOCATION AND BLOCK PLAN Refused PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 2 Refused PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION Refused PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION Refused EXISTING AND PROPOSED BLOCK PLANS Refused EXISTING PLAN Refused EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION Refused EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION 2 Refused EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION Refused EXISTING REAR ELEVATION Refused PROPOSED PLAN Refused PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Refused 48
Page 49
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. 49
Page 50
50
Page 51
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant Mr and Mrs A and L Don Appendix 5 3e 51
Page 52
52
Page 53
Page 1 of 4 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 100728374-001 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 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: * Mr and Mrs A and L Don Thorn Highway 0 Maythorne Cottage ML10 6SJ United Kingdom STRATHAVEN Maythorne Cottage, ChapeltonNot Applicable 3e 53
Page 54
Page 2 of 4 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 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. MAYTHORNE COTTAGE Change of use from cattery to residential annex (Further application under Regulation 11) 2014 permission was granted to build the Cattery. EK/14/0088 refers. The building was build to the standards of a house to be aesthetic pleasing to the environment and the main dwelling. Jan 2022 application was made to convert to a residential annex P/22/0081 Refers. Permission was granted. In Jan 2025 one moth before this permission was due to expire an identical application was submitted. P/25/0185 refers. This application was refused some 8 months ! after submitting. South Lanarkshire Council CHAPELTON STRATHAVEN ML10 6SJ 649763 265680 54
Page 55
Page 3 of 4 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) 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? * Our application was granted 3 yrs ago , 1 month before it was due to expire we reapplied and subsequently was refused . Our appeal is there is no building work required externally , the building fabric , structure and looks remain as was when permission was granted in 2014. Closing the cattery will enhance the green belt carbon foot print drastically by reducing more than 1000 clients driving to and from our location on a B class road over 365 days a year and dispose of 520 kilo of cat litter. Documents a pictures to be uploaded P/25/0185 18/09/2025 19/02/2025 55
Page 56
Page 4 of 4 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. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Alan John DON Declaration Date: 09/10/2025 Fee Exemption Reason I used the fee calculator and my application / request for local review / appeal is not subject to fee No fee required at this moment due to it being an appeal review request. 56
Page 57
57
Page 58
Further to my appeal, when I reapplied in February 2025 my previous application from 2023 was still valid for one month, it took 7 months to refuse my application when in fact the legislation says 2 months for an ordinary application and 4 months for a more involved application. 58
Page 59
59
Page 60
Concerns We do intend to close the cattery within the next 6 months and we understand that under the new building guidelines, should we not get a favourable decision we will be unable to use this building for any other purpose other than that for which it was built. This means the building will deteriorate and most probably become unsightly to the environment as we will have no use for it and will not have the will to maintain any empty unused building. Can you advise me on this matter if this is correct. Kind Regards Alan Don 60
Page 61
61
Page 62
62
Page 63
63
Page 64
64
Page 65
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 23 February 2026 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/25/0603 for Erection of Double Garage at Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall 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: Mr Colin Durham Proposal: Erection of Double Garage Location: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall ML9 2UB Council Area/Ward: 20 - Larkhall 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 65
Page 66
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. 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) 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. 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. 66
Page 67
6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representation received. No comments on the further representation was received from the applicant. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 9 February 2026 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent We will work towards a sustainable future in sustainable places 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:- Tracy Slater, Administration Adviser Tel: 07385 370089 E-mail: tracy.slater@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 67
Page 68
68
Page 69
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 4a 69
Page 70
70
Page 71
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 100713964-001 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. 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 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: * Erect double garage Mr Colin Durham Lanark road garrion bridge Garbank Ml9 2ub Scotland Larkhall 4a 71
Page 72
Page 2 of 5 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 describe 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? * GARBANK South Lanarkshire Council LANARK ROAD GARRION BRIDGE LARKHALL ML9 2UB 651154 279289 72
Page 73
Page 3 of 5 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: Mr Colin Durham On behalf of: Date: 24/05/2025 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * 73
Page 74
Page 4 of 5 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 described in this form and the accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information. Declaration Name: Mr Colin Durham Declaration Date: 24/05/2025 74
Page 75
Page 5 of 5 Payment Details Online payment: IDOX00015076 Payment date: 24/05/2025 12:09:00 Created: 24/05/2025 12:09 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
Report of Handling Report dated 4 August 2025 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2 4b 77
Page 78
78
Page 79
Householder Delegated Report of Handling 1. Site Description and Proposal 1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a double garage to the front of a detached dwelling house located at Garbank, Garrion Bridge. 1.2 The application site is located in an established residential area characterised by a range of different house types and styles, fronting onto Lanark Road, with off-street parking in the form of a front driveway and a rear garden ground bound by 2m high timber fencing. The proposed garage would sit to the front of the house on the northern side of the front garden. The structure would be approximately 6m in width, and measure approximately 7.3 m in length and 4.2m in height. 1.3 The proposed materials are to include concrete roof tiles with a pitched roof and roughcast render for the walls with a brick course at the bottom. The structure would feature a single door on the southern elevation and a 2.4m wide by 2.2m high metal garage door to the eastern side. 2. Consultations No formal consultations were required to be undertaken in respect of this proposal. 3. Representations Statutory neighbour notification was undertaken in respect of this application and no letters of representation have been received as a result of this publicity. 4. Development Plan 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. Reference no: P/25/0603 Proposal: Erection of double garage Site Address: Garbank Lanark Road Garrion Bridge Larkhall ML9 2UB Applicant: Mr Colin Durham Agent: Application Type: Full Planning Permission Development Plan Compliance: Yes Recommendation: Refusal Representations: 0 Support 0 Object 0 Comments 4b 79
Page 80
National Planning Framework 4 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is Scotland’s national spatial strategy for Scotland. It sets out spatial principles, regional priorities, national developments, and national planning policy. NPF4 supports the planning and delivery of sustainable places, liveable places, and productive places. National Planning Framework 4 Policies Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2: Climate mitigation and adaption Policy 14: Design, quality and place Policy 16: Quality homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) For the purposes of determining planning applications the Council assesses proposals against the policies contained within the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2). In this regard the application site and associated proposals are affected by the following policies contained in the SLLDP2:- SLLDP2 Volume 1 Policies Policy 2: Climate Change Policy 3: General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking SLLDP2 Volume 2 Policies Policy DM2: House Extensions and Alterations South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) Supporting Planning Guidance Development at a Dwellinghouse 5. Assessment and Discussion 5.1 The main issues to be addressed in the determination of this application includes the layout, siting and design of the proposal, and an assessment of any visual and amenity impacts. The policies contained within National Planning Framework 4 and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 are the main consideration in this case. 5.2 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. 5.3 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. 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 80
Page 81
ii. Do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. 5.4 This application site relates to a detached home, within the Garrion Settlement where uniformity is a defining characteristic. The dwelling is part of a row of fifteen dwellinghouses which form an established building line. There are no examples of detached garages being located in the front gardens and forward of the established building line in this row of dwellinghouses. None of the homes protrude beyond the established building line on Lanark Road. Developments which extend beyond an established building line can have a negative impact on their surroundings. According to council guidance, garages must be subordinate to the original dwelling and must be located either to the side or rear of a house. In terms of this development, since the garage is neither located to the rear or the side, it will dominate visually due to its size, scale and design. The prospect of locating the garage in a different location was raised and the agent/applicant declined to relocate the proposal. Consequently, it is necessary to assess and determine the application based on the as submitted plans. The principal of a garage at the property is accepted however not in the location proposed. 5.5 In conclusion, due to the size, scale, location and design of this proposal it is considered that it would result in a significant and adverse impact upon local amenity of nearby neighbouring dwellinghouses. This proposal does not meet the terms of Policy 14 and 16 of NPF4 and Policies 3, 5, and DM2 of the Local Development Plan 2. 5.6 Overall, the proposed development will result in adverse visual amenity impacts and conflicts with the relevant policies contained within the development plan. Therefore, planning permission is refused. 6. Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 3 & Policy 5 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it will have an unacceptable significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of adjacent properties due to the location of the garage in the front garden and due to its design. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM2 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the siting, form, scale and design do not respect the character of the existing dwelling and wider area and it will dominate and overwhelm the existing dwelling and street scene in terms of size, location and scale. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 as it will be detrimental to the amenity of the local area. This proposal is inconsistent with one of the six qualities of places, distinctive, which supports attention to detail of local architecture. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 16 of National Planning Framework 4 as it will detrimentally affect neighbouring properties in terms of design, size and scale which would result in unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. 7. Reason for Decision The proposal is contrary to Policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) and Policies 3, 5, and DM2 of the Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) as it will result in a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area and 81
Page 82
neighbouring residential amenity. There are no other material considerations that would outweigh the proposals variance with the development plan. Authorised by: Bernard Darroch Date: 4 August 2025 Background Papers Further information relating to the application can be found online: https://publicaccess.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=SDRYCVOPHPS00 Corporate Considerations The report raises no impacts or risks in terms of equalities or financial implications. Any implications in terms of climate change, sustainability or the environment will have been considered above in terms of the relevant national and local policies. Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Stuart Connolly Tel: 07385516139 E-mail: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 82
Page 83
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 4c 83
Page 84
84
Page 85
4c 85
Page 86
Photo 1 looking north 86
Page 87
Photo 2 looking southeast 87
Page 88
Photo 3 looking east 88
Page 89
Photo 4 looking southwest 89
Page 90
Photo 5 looking northeast 90
Page 91
Photo 6 looking southwest 91
Page 92
92
Page 93
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 4d 93
Page 94
94
Page 95
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email stuart.connolly@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07385516139 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Mr Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Garrion Bridge Larkhall ML9 2UB Our Ref: P/25/0603 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Stuart Connolly Date: 8 August 2025 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of double garage Site address: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB Application no: P/25/0603 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 Stuart Connolly on 07385516139 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 4d 95
Page 96
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr Colin Durham Per: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB With reference to your application received on 26.05.2025 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of double garage Site location: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB 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: 8th August 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/25/0603 96
Page 97
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/25/0603 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal is contrary to Policy 3 & Policy 5 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it will have an unacceptable significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of adjacent properties due to the location of the garage in the front garden and due to its design. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM2 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the siting, form, scale and design do not respect the character of the existing dwelling and wider area and it will dominate and overwhelm the existing dwelling and street scene in terms of size, location and scale. 03. The proposal is contrary to Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 as it will be detrimental to the amenity of the local area. This proposal is inconsistent with one of the six qualities of places, distinctive, which supports attention to detail of local architecture. 04. The proposal is contrary to Policy 16 of National Planning Framework 4 as it will detrimentally affect neighbouring properties in terms of design, size and scale which would result in unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. Reason(s) for decision The proposal is contrary to Policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) and Policies 3, 5, and DM2 of the Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) as it will result in a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area and neighbouring residential amenity. There are no other material considerations that would outweigh the proposals variance with the development plan. 97
Page 98
Notes to applicant Application number: P/25/0603 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 LOCATION AND BLOCK PLANS AS EXISTING A Refused LOCATION BLOCK PLAN AS PROPOSED A Refused FLOOR PLAN AS PROPOSED A Refused FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS AS PROPOSED A Refused SIDE ELEVATIONS AS PROPOSED A Refused SECTION AS PROPOSED A Refused 98
Page 99
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 99
Page 100
accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 100
Page 101
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant Colin Durham Appendix 5 4e 101
Page 102
102
Page 103
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 100732071-001 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 TM Architectural & building services Tom McCafferty Ballater Crescent 25 ML2 7YJ Scotland Wishaw Coltness 4e 103
Page 104
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 Other GARBANK Mr Colin South Lanarkshire Council Durham LANARK ROAD Lanark Road GARRION BRIDGE Garbank LARKHALL ML9 2UB ML9 2UB Scotland 651154 Larkhall 279289 Garrion Bridge 104
Page 105
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) The erection of a detached double garage. Details in separate supporting statement. 105
Page 106
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. Supporting Statement - Refusal of Householder Application letter - Officer Report- Floor Plan as Proposed - Front and Rear Elevations as Proposed - Application Form - Location and Block Plan as Proposed - Location and Block Plan as Existing - Section as Proposed - Side Elevations as Proposed. P/25/0603 08/08/2025 26/05/2025 106
Page 107
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 Tom McCafferty Declaration Date: 06/11/2025 Payment Details Online payment: Payment date: 07/11/2025 11:26:00 Created: 07/11/2025 11:26 107
Page 108
108
Page 109
Stuart Connolly Community And Enterprise Resources Planning And Regulatory Services Dear Stuart Proposal: Erection of double garage Site address: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB Application no: P/25/0603 Further to your refusal letter of 8th August 2025, I can confirm that I have instructed Tom McCaƯerty of TM Architectural & Building services to submit an appeal on my behalf and act as my agent in dealing with it. I would be grateful if any future correspondence in relation to this bed done through him. His contact details are: Email: Mobile: Yours sincerely Colin Durham 109
Page 110
110
Page 111
PLRB APPEAL STATEMENT FOR PLANNING APPLICATION - P/25/0693 Appellant: Mr Colin Durham Proposal: Erection of double garage Site: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB Local Authority: South Lanarkshire Council Introduction This Appeal is submitted against the decision of South Lanarkshire Council to refuse detailed planning permission for the erection of a single detached garage in the front garden of the application site at the dwellinghouse referred to as ‘Garbank’, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge (P/25/0603). The decision was issued on 8th August 2025. The refusal states that the proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policies 14 and 16, and South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) Policies 3, 5, and DM2, resulting in a significant adverse impact upon the visual amenity of adjacent properties due to its location in the front garden of the plot. In addition, it was deemed contrary to the development plan policies by virtue of its design, location and scale and that it is inconsistent with the six qualities of place as listed in policy 16 of NPF4. This statement will demonstrate that the proposed development is not contrary to the development plan and that the Council’s decision to refuse the application should be overturned. Proposal and Site Context The application seeks permission for a standard double-car garage, constructed using materials sympathetic to the main dwelling (e.g., roughcast render and concrete roof tiles). The garage will be used for the storage of the appellant’s classic cars. The garage would be located within the front garden, set back from Lanark Road and positioned to allow safe and easy vehicular access to the existing/proposed driveway. The site is within an established residential area - Garrion Bridge - has a range of house types and a diverse settlement pattern. These consist of detached, semi-detached houses, bungalows and modern two storey villas. Some houses are sited close to the road, and some are set back. Some properties have large front gardens and others have larger rear gardens The proposed garage design is domestic in scale and is designed to sit comfortably within the plot and will have its doors facing south-east towards the neighbouring property from which it is obscured by mature landscaping on the boundary. Planning Policy The application was determined under the following development plan(s) and policies 111
Page 112
National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 – Climate mitigation and adaption Policy 14 – Design, quality and place Policy 16 – Quality homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) Policy 2 – Climate Change Policy 3 – General Urban Areas Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking Policy DM2 – House Extensions and Alterations South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) Supporting Planning Guidance – Development at a Dwellinghouse Grounds of Appeal The Council asserts that the proposal conflicts with the relevant policies listed above, particularly in terms of a perceived negative visual amenity, detrimental to other properties. It is contended that the proposal fully adheres to the principles of high-quality design and positive placemaking as follows. It is accepted that whilst the SLLDP2 policies encourage garages to the side and rear of a property, however the plan does not forbid this. Indeed, the Supporting Guidance in terms of Development at a Dwellinghouse states that garages should ’preferably’ be sited to the rear or side of a property. This is not always possible and where a property possesses a large front garden, it should be considered as an option, especially where it does not come beyond an established building line. The rear garden to the appellant property cannot be easily accessed to the rear by a vehicle. The front garden is of a generous size and crucially, the properties to the east form a building line which is essentially in front of the appeal site. The appellant’s house sits back from these neighbouring properties but for a narrow section which protrudes to the front. Indeed, the proposed garage will sit level with this building line and also with the neighbouring properties. It should be noted that a number of newer two storey properties to the south also sit close to the road – including properties which have garages to the front, albeit these are integral. It is also contended that Policy DM2 – House Extensions and Alterations makes no mention of buildings in the front garden being unacceptable. The main aim of this policy is to ensure that the proposal respects its context. The proposed garage will be situated respectfully towards the side boundary of the plot. In terms of floorspace, the garage will be significantly smaller than the main house and will a negligible impact on the settlement pattern of the locality. Garrion Bridge is not a Conservation Area, nor does it have a significant collection of listed buildings. The proposed siting of the garage does not have a detrimental impact on sunlight or daylight. By its nature it would not harm residential amenity by way of noise or loss of privacy. The garage has been designed to be subservient in scale and proportional to the main dwelling. Its material selection is intentional, seeking to match or complement the house, ensuring visual harmony. The design is uncontroversial and will not look out of place in this locality. It is contended that the proposal is compliant with Policy 14 (Design, quality and place) of NPF4 and SLLDP2 Policy 3 (General Urban Areas and Settlements) and Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking) in that the proposed location is necessary to meet the appellant's functional requirements for secure vehicle storage and to maximize the available 112
Page 113
private amenity space in the rear garden. The garage is set back sufficiently from the pavement edge and is not unduly prominent. The streetscape in this specific part of Garrion Bridge exhibits a variety of dwelling types, boundary treatments, and permitted development (including existing driveways and associated structures/hardstanding), meaning the proposed garage will not appear as an isolated or unwelcome addition. The proposal improves the function of the dwelling, supporting the long-term sustainability and usability of the property for its residents, a core component of sustainable placemaking. The perceived impact on residential amenity under Policy DM2 is theoretical and not based on demonstrable physical harm. The proposal is consistent with the level of amenity typically expected within an established residential area. Material Considerations In addition to the fact that the application is compliant with development plan policy, there are material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of granting permission: 1. Highway Safety and Off-Street Parking: The provision of secure, dedicated off-street parking reduces reliance on street parking, thereby improving visibility, ease of access, and safety for all road users and pedestrians in the locality. This is a clear planning benefit. The Roads Department have also not objected to this proposal. 2. Security: The need for secure storage for a vehicle and associated domestic equipment is a legitimate and reasonable requirement for the appellant. The front garden is the most logical location for this. Conclusion The proposed garage is a well-designed, functional, and visually sympathetic addition to the property. It meets the core objectives of NPF4 Policies 14 and 16 by respecting local context and delivering a high-quality design that supports the functionality of the home. Furthermore, it complies with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 3, 5, and DM2, as it does not cause any unacceptable detriment to the surrounding area or neighbouring residential amenity. The appellant respectfully requests that the PLRB uphold this appeal and grant planning permission for the proposed garage. 113
Page 114
114
Page 115
The planning application form is included at Appendix 1 of the review documents The report of handling is included at Appendix 2 of the review documents The Planning Decision Notice is included at Appendix 4 of the review documents 115
Page 116
116
Page 117
2335 6000140 7000 140 140 7405 465 910 6030 6320 141035001410 RWP RWP Refer to specification for external wall construction. 140 225 440 2335 Blockwork to the front elevation to be laid on it's edge to accommodate new lintol above. B B Concrete floor slab to have a gentle slope to the front doors. 2335 2000 2000 2000 Garage Roller shutter door to clients specification 1000 1000 PROPERTY DIVIDE ByAmendmentsDateRev Project Title 1:50 @ A3 Scales DateDrawn Project No. Drawing No. Rev GA-003 Floor Plan As Proposed Client The sole purpose of this Drawing is for obtaining Planning Approval & Building Warrant ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering Details may be required for construction and site works. GENERAL NOTES · Building Control to be informed in writing 7 days before commencement on site. · The contractor is deemed to have visited the site and ascertained the true nature of the works. · All dimensions are in millimetres u.n.o. · No dimensions are to be scaled from this or any other associated drawing. · All works are to be carried out in a tradesman like manner and in accordance with all current British Standards and Code of Practice. · Allow for removing all rubbish and debris from the site and for thoroughly cleaning the site. · All demolition's to be carried out in accordance with BS. 6187 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 2000. · All materials and workmanship not otherwise specified shall be in accordance with the current British Standards including all amendments to date. New Detached Garage Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Larkhall ML9 2UB May 2025 25/05/100 117
Page 118
2250 F.F.L Eaves Ridge 1660 Concrete Roof Tiles 22.5 Degree Pitch. Upvc Fascia & Soffit. Upvc Gutters & RWP. Roughcast Render. Metal Garage Door. Facing Brick Front Elevation (facing existing house) 2400 F.G.L Eaves Ridge 1660 Concrete Roof Tiles 22.5 Degree Pitch. Upvc Fascia & Soffit. Upvc Gutters & RWP. Roughcast Render. Facing BrickAB AB AB AB Rear Elevation (facing Lanark Road) ByAmendmentsDateRev Project Title 1:50 @ A3 Scales DateDrawn Project No. Drawing No. Rev GA-004 Elevations As Proposed Client The sole purpose of this Drawing is for obtaining Planning Approval & Building Warrant ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering Details may be required for construction and site works. GENERAL NOTES · Building Control to be informed in writing 7 days before commencement on site. · The contractor is deemed to have visited the site and ascertained the true nature of the works. · All dimensions are in millimetres u.n.o. · No dimensions are to be scaled from this or any other associated drawing. · All works are to be carried out in a tradesman like manner and in accordance with all current British Standards and Code of Practice. · Allow for removing all rubbish and debris from the site and for thoroughly cleaning the site. · All demolition's to be carried out in accordance with BS. 6187 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 2000. · All materials and workmanship not otherwise specified shall be in accordance with the current British Standards including all amendments to date. New Detached Garage Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Larkhall ML9 2UB May 2025 25/05/100 118
Page 119
35.2m Elmyn Garbank Millfield Cottages Mill Cottage Garrion The Beeches Garrion Bridge Garrion Bridge LANARK ROAD A71 8 2 6 Elmyn Garbank LANARK ROAD 6 1000 6320 7405 Overhaning trees on adjacent property to be trimmed back as required ByAmendmentsDateRev Project Title as indicated @ A3 Scales DateDrawn Project No. Drawing No. Rev GA-002 Location & Block Plans As Proposed Client The sole purpose of this Drawing is for obtaining Planning Approval & Building Warrant ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering Details may be required for construction and site works. GENERAL NOTES · Building Control to be informed in writing 7 days before commencement on site. · The contractor is deemed to have visited the site and ascertained the true nature of the works. · All dimensions are in millimetres u.n.o. · No dimensions are to be scaled from this or any other associated drawing. · All works are to be carried out in a tradesman like manner and in accordance with all current British Standards and Code of Practice. · Allow for removing all rubbish and debris from the site and for thoroughly cleaning the site. · All demolition's to be carried out in accordance with BS. 6187 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 2000. · All materials and workmanship not otherwise specified shall be in accordance with the current British Standards including all amendments to date. New Detached Garage Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Larkhall ML9 2UB May 2025 25/05/100 0 50m25m25m 75m 100m 125m 1:1250 010m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 1:500 Location plan scale 1:1250 @ A3 Block plan scale 1:500 @ A3 119
Page 120
35.2m Garbank Millfield Cottages Mill Cottage Garrion The Beeches Garrion Bridge Garrion Bridge LANARK ROAD A71 8 2 6 Elmyn Overhaning trees on adjacent property to be trimmed back as required Garbank LANARK ROAD 6 Elmyn Overhaning trees on adjacent property to be trimmed back as required ByAmendmentsDateRev Project Title as indicated @ A3 Scales DateDrawn Project No. Drawing No. Rev GA-001 Location & Block Plans As Existing Client The sole purpose of this Drawing is for obtaining Planning Approval & Building Warrant ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering Details may be required for construction and site works. GENERAL NOTES · Building Control to be informed in writing 7 days before commencement on site. · The contractor is deemed to have visited the site and ascertained the true nature of the works. · All dimensions are in millimetres u.n.o. · No dimensions are to be scaled from this or any other associated drawing. · All works are to be carried out in a tradesman like manner and in accordance with all current British Standards and Code of Practice. · Allow for removing all rubbish and debris from the site and for thoroughly cleaning the site. · All demolition's to be carried out in accordance with BS. 6187 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 2000. · All materials and workmanship not otherwise specified shall be in accordance with the current British Standards including all amendments to date. New Detached Garage Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Larkhall ML9 2UB May 2025 25/05/100 0 50m25m25m 75m 100m 125m 1:1250 010m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 1:500 Location plan scale 1:1250 @ A3 Block plan scale 1:500 @ A3 120
Page 121
450 300 Refer to engineers specification for foundation construction. SOFFIT VENTILATION: In Accordance with BS 5250 2002, Clause 8.4 giving continuous ventilation to a minimum standard of not less than 10000m2 per linear metre. Horizontal dpc fitted a minimum of 150mm above finished ground level Refer to engineers specification for underbuild construction. Refer to specification for roof construction. Refer to specification for external wall construction 2100 2400 Refer to engineers specification for lintol details. 22.5 Degree Pitch Eaves 2300 Ridge 1660 Garage ByAmendmentsDateRev Project Title 1:50 @ A3 Scales DateDrawn Project No. Drawing No. Rev GA-006 Section As Proposed Client The sole purpose of this Drawing is for obtaining Planning Approval & Building Warrant ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering Details may be required for construction and site works. GENERAL NOTES · Building Control to be informed in writing 7 days before commencement on site. · The contractor is deemed to have visited the site and ascertained the true nature of the works. · All dimensions are in millimetres u.n.o. · No dimensions are to be scaled from this or any other associated drawing. · All works are to be carried out in a tradesman like manner and in accordance with all current British Standards and Code of Practice. · Allow for removing all rubbish and debris from the site and for thoroughly cleaning the site. · All demolition's to be carried out in accordance with BS. 6187 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 2000. · All materials and workmanship not otherwise specified shall be in accordance with the current British Standards including all amendments to date. New Detached Garage Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Larkhall ML9 2UB May 2025 25/05/100 121
Page 122
2250 Eaves Ridge 1660 Concrete Roof Tiles 22.5 Degree Pitch. Upvc Fascia & Soffit. Upvc Gutters & RWP. Roughcast Render. Facing Brick AB AB ABAB F.F.LF.G.L Side Elevation 2400 F.F.L Eaves Ridge 1660 Concrete Roof Tiles 22.5 Degree Pitch. Upvc Fascia & Soffit. Upvc Gutters & RWP. Roughcast Render. Facing Brick AB AB AB AB F.G.L Side Elevation ByAmendmentsDateRev Project Title 1:50 @ A3 Scales DateDrawn Project No. Drawing No. Rev GA-005 Side Elevations As Proposed Client The sole purpose of this Drawing is for obtaining Planning Approval & Building Warrant ONLY. Further Architectural or Engineering Details may be required for construction and site works. GENERAL NOTES · Building Control to be informed in writing 7 days before commencement on site. · The contractor is deemed to have visited the site and ascertained the true nature of the works. · All dimensions are in millimetres u.n.o. · No dimensions are to be scaled from this or any other associated drawing. · All works are to be carried out in a tradesman like manner and in accordance with all current British Standards and Code of Practice. · Allow for removing all rubbish and debris from the site and for thoroughly cleaning the site. · All demolition's to be carried out in accordance with BS. 6187 and the Health & Safety at Work Act 2000. · All materials and workmanship not otherwise specified shall be in accordance with the current British Standards including all amendments to date. New Detached Garage Colin Durham Garbank Lanark Road Larkhall ML9 2UB May 2025 25/05/100 122
Page 123
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 4f 123
Page 124
124
Page 125
Reference no. P/25/0603 Statement of Observations Date 04.12.2025 Planning proposal: Erection of double garage Location: Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB Notice of Review – Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge, Larkhall, ML9 2UB Planning appeal - Erection of double garage (P/25/0603) 1 Planning Background 1.1 Mr Colin Durham submitted a planning application (reference: P/25/0603) on 26th May 2025 to South Lanarkshire Council for the erection of a double detached garage to the front curtilage of a detached dwelling located at Garbank, Lanark Road, Garrion Bridge. After due consideration of the application in terms of the Development Plan and all other material planning considerations, planning application P/25/0603 was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 8th of August 2025 for the reasons listed in the decision notice. 1.2 The report of handling dated 4th of August explains in detail all material planning considerations and the reasons/justification for the decision. The reasons for refusal are listed in the decision notice which along with the Report of Handling are available elsewhere in the papers accompanying the Notice of Review. 2 Assessment against the development plan and other relevant policies 2.1 Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, all applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The determining issues in the consideration of the site, which is the subject of this notice of review, comprise the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 2.2 The delegated report for application P/22/1770 sets out the relevant policies within the Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4 and assesses the proposals against them. It is therefore not intended to replicate the assessment again within this statement of observations. The application was considered contrary to Policies 14 and 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) and Policies 3, 5, and DM2 of the Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) as it will result in a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area and neighbouring residential amenity. There are no other material considerations that would outweigh the proposals variance with the development plan. 4f 125
Page 126
2.3 As part of the planning application process, statutory neighbour notification was carried out. In response 9 letters of objection were received. These objections were material to the assessment of the application and provide a broad illustration of the views held by neighbours adjoining the site. The Report of Handling concisely summarises the issues raised and provides an appropriate planning response. 3 Observations on the appellant’s Notice of Review. 3.1 The appellant has submitted a statement to support their review. The grounds raised will be summarised and responded to below. 3.2 It is accepted that whilst the SLLDP2 policies encourage garages to the side and rear of a property, however the plan does not forbid this. Indeed, the Supporting Guidance in terms of Development at a Dwellinghouse states that garages should ’preferably’ be sited to the rear or side of a property. This is not always possible and where a property possesses a large front garden, it should be considered as an option, especially where it does not come beyond an established building line 3.3 In this case, a garage within the rear curtilage is entirely achievable. Suitable access of approx. 3.3m wide to the side of the dwelling is available, and the land is available to accommodate such a structure. The applicant’s rear garden extends to over 500 m², which cannot reasonably be considered incapable of accommodating a garage. The guidance directs decisions making, and in this case the siting within the front garden forward of the building line in the context of this surrounding area in addition to the blank frontage (rear elevation) facing the street has not been considered to comply with the guidance or policies contained within NPF4 and the Local Development Plan (LDP). 3.4 It is also contended that Policy DM2 – House Extensions and Alterations makes no mention of buildings in the front garden being unacceptable. The main aim of this policy is to ensure that the proposal respects its context. 3.5 The proposal is in direct conflict with Policy DM2, as it fails to respect the established context of the surrounding streetscape. None of the neighbouring properties along the street feature detached garages within their front curtilage and introducing such a development would be inconsistent with the prevailing character of the area. 3.6 It is contended that the proposal is compliant with Policy 14 (Design, quality and place) of NPF4 and SLLDP2 Policy 3 (General Urban Areas and Settlements) and Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking) in that the proposed location is necessary to meet the appellant's functional requirements for secure vehicle storage and to maximize the available private amenity space in the rear garden 126
Page 127
3.7 A garage shall remain subordinate to the original dwelling and should be positioned either to the side or rear of the property. In this case, the proposed garage is located to the front, and due to its size, scale, and design, it would visually dominate the dwelling and streetscape. The option of relocating the garage to a more appropriate position was raised during the process; however, the applicant declined to amend the proposal. Accordingly, the application must be assessed on the submitted plans. While the principle of a garage at this property is accepted, the location proposed is not considered appropriate or compliant with policy. 3.8 In addition to the fact that the application is compliant with development plan policy, there are material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of granting permission: 1. Highway Safety and Off-Street Parking: The provision of secure, dedicated off-street parking reduces reliance on street parking, thereby improving visibility, ease of access, and safety for all road users and pedestrians in the locality. This is a clear planning benefit. The Roads Department have also not objected to this proposal. 2. Security: The need for secure storage for a vehicle and associated domestic equipment is a legitimate and reasonable requirement for the appellant. The front garden is the most logical location for this. 3.9 The benefits cited in relation to highway safety, off‑street parking, and secure storage are acknowledged. However, highway safety and off-street parking is already achievable on site without the provision of a garage. Security can be satisfactorily achieved through the provision of a detached garage located within the rear curtilage of the property. The rear garden is of sufficient size to accommodate such a structure without compromising amenity space, and this would ensure compliance with policy by maintaining the established building line and respecting the character of the surrounding streetscape. Furthermore, a garage can be constructed in the rear garden without requiring an application for planning permission, where the meet permitted development rights. 4 Summary and conclusion 4 .1 In summary, as required by planning law, application P/25/0603 has been assessed in terms of the Development Plan and all other material considerations. In this respect the report of handling provides a detailed summary of all relevant considerations and a reasoned justification that the proposed development does not accord with the policy provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the Planning Local Review Body support the decision to refuse planning permission P/25/0603 based on the information contained in the report of handling and the associated reasons for refusal. 127
Page 128
128
Page 129
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 23 February 2026 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/25/0448 for Erection of Dwelling House with Associated Access and Off-Street Parking at New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark 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: Mr David Lowry Proposal: Erection of Dwelling House with Associated Access and Off- Street Parking Location: New Steadings Fam, Green Towers Road, Lanark ML11 7RB Council Area/Ward: 02 – Clydesdale North 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 5 129
Page 130
[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 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. 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 consultee response(s) (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. 130
Page 131
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) 9 February 2026 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent We will work towards a sustainable future in sustainable places 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:- Tracy Slater, Administration Adviser Tel: 07385 370089 E-mail: tracy.slater@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 131
Page 132
132
Page 133
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 5a 133
Page 134
134
Page 135
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 100708993-001 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 Farmers retirement house 5a 135
Page 136
Page 2 of 8 Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Planning Services UK Mr Thomas David Cochrane Lowry Dyfrig Street Newsteading Farm 37 Newsteading Farm 01412666666 ML7 4DQ ML11 7RB United Kingdom Scotland Shotts Lanark planning-applications@planning-services.co.uk 136
Page 137
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 describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. NEW STEADINGS FARM 2300.00 Agricultural South Lanarkshire Council LANARK ML11 7RB 645169 287280 137
Page 138
Page 4 of 8 Are you proposing any change to public paths, public rights of way or affecting any public right of access? * Yes No If Yes please show on your drawings the position of any affected areas highlighting the changes you propose to make, including arrangements for continuing or alternative public access. How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) currently exist on the application Site? How many vehicle parking spaces (garaging and open parking) do you propose on the site (i.e. the Total of existing and any new spaces or a reduced number of spaces)? * Please show on your drawings the position of existing and proposed parking spaces and identify if these are for the use of particular types of vehicles (e.g. parking for disabled people, coaches, HGV vehicles, cycles spaces). Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No Are you proposing to connect to the public drainage network (eg. to an existing sewer)? * Yes – connecting to public drainage network No – proposing to make private drainage arrangements Not Applicable – only arrangements for water supply required As you have indicated that you are proposing to make private drainage arrangements, please provide further details. What private arrangements are you proposing? * New/Altered septic tank. Treatment/Additional treatment (relates to package sewage treatment plants, or passive sewage treatment such as a reed bed). Other private drainage arrangement (such as chemical toilets or composting toilets). What private arrangements are you proposing for the New/Altered septic tank? * Discharge to land via soakaway. Discharge to watercourse(s) (including partial soakaway). Discharge to coastal waters. Please explain your private drainage arrangements briefly here and show more details on your plans and supporting information: * Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. 0 Septic tank and Suds connected to existing field drain 4 138
Page 139
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. on site plan 1 139
Page 140
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: * 140
Page 141
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: Thomas Cochrane On behalf of: Mr David Lowry Date: 18/04/2025 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 141
Page 142
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 Thomas Cochrane Declaration Date: 18/04/2025 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 18/04/2025 14:25 142
Page 143
Report of Handling Report dated 28 November 2025 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 5b 143
Page 144
144
Page 145
Reference no. P/25/0448 Delegated Report Date 28/11/2025 Planning proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access and off street parking Location: New Steadings Farm Green Towers Road Lanark ML11 7RB Application Type : Detailed planning application Applicant : Mr David Lowry Location : New Steadings Farm Green Towers Road Lanark ML11 7RB Decision: Other action/notes: Application refused (1) Report by: Area Manager Policy reference: National Policy Framework 4 (Adopted 2023) 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 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 14 Natural and Historic Development SLDP2: Policy GBRA1 Rural Design and Development SLDP2: Policy GBR10 Accommodation associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business SLDP2: Policy NHE16 Landscape 5b 145
Page 146
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 Roads Development Management Team Scottish Water No objection subject to conditions covering visibility and installation of an electric vehicle charging point. Response: Noted. This proposed development is within the Camps Water Treatment Works catchment. A Water Connection Application is required to allow a full appraisal. There is no public waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development. Response: Noted. A septic tank soakaway is proposed. Representation(s): ► 0 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 146
Page 147
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The application site (0.23 ha) is in open countryside, between Cartland and Lanark. It sits in a field corner at the junction of the access road to New Steading Farm and New Towers Road (a minor public road). 1.2 The proposal is for a single storey detached dwelling with associated access. It is proposed as a home for a retired farmer who initially wanted to pass New Steading Farm onto family members but has since sold it to a larger farming enterprise. 1.3 Planning Permission P/24/0332 for a dwellinghouse on a site further along the access road from the current application site, was refused by the Planning Committee in March 2025. The reason for this refusal included inappropriate design in an isolated location, failure to submit a Business Plan and adverse impact upon landscape character. A Planning Application (Ref. P/23/0820) for a dwellinghouse, at a midpoint between the farm steading and access entrance, was withdrawn by the applicant, in February 2024, prior to validation. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Following the statutory period of neighbour notification and advertisement in the local press for non-notification of neighbours, no valid representations have been received. 3 Assessment and Conclusions 3.1 The determining issues in the consideration of this application are its compliance with the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2). 3.2 Climate Change NFP4 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 that the development area is affected by flooding. Solar panels are proposed for the western and southern roof planes. 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 Policy 2 and SLLDP2 Policy 2. 3.4 Principle of Development 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 that NPF4 supports new homes in the rural area where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed and (using the only applicable criteria under (17a) vi for this proposal) where it is for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. 147
Page 148
3.5 The proposal is for a retirement home for a farmer who until recently ran an established livestock farm at New Steading Farm, for 23 years, until selling to AK Hill Agri Contracts. A Business Plan has been submitted demonstrating that the business is established, viable and sustainable in the long term. At present the applicant, Mr Lowry, will still be involved as a farm manager until the proposed retirement dwelling is built. Once the proposed retirement dwelling is constructed, the supporting information advises a new farm manager will be appointed - there is reference to Mr Lowry then continuing in a supportive advisory role. 3.6 When plans for a retirement house were first presented to the Planning Authority in 2023, at a site mid way between the farm steading and the farm road end, the intention was that the applicant’s daughter and son in law would take over the farm. Since then, there has been considerable delay due to discussions about the suitability of the design, chosen site(s) and failure to respond to requests for a Business Plan. During that period the applicant’s daughter and son in law decided that they were no longer interested in taking on the farm, resulting in the private sale to an agricultural business, AK Hill Contracts, with no family or previous business relationship to the applicant. As stated, to help facilitate a successful transition, the applicant is being retained in a management and consultative role until a retirement house is available. 3.7 NPF4 Policy 17 supports a single home for a retirement succession of a viable farm holding. The policy does not support dwellings for retired farmers without qualification; the implication is that any proposed dwelling is intended to support a farm holding to allow a succession plan to take place. Whilst the supporting information has set out a viable farm holding, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling is required to allow a succession plan to take place. 3.8 A succession plan would generally relate to the handing over of a farm to the next generation, which may occur without the release of assets to allow a retiring member to move on. There is no familial or generational link between Mr Lowry and AK Hill Contracts and, the information submitted makes it clear that the family have decided no longer to take on the business. This would lead to the conclusion that this situation is a sale of a farm, which has already occurred, rather than a succession plan. 3.9 Whilst the supporting information details Mr Lowry would perform a supportive advisory to AK Hill business at New Steadings Farm, it has not been set out that this role is essential for the business or as to why this role would require a dwelling in proximity to the farm. Furthermore, if this role should cease to be undertaken by Mr Lowry, the proposed dwellinghouse no longer remains within the unit of New Steadings Farm, as the application site is now in separate ownership to that of the farm. 3.10 In conclusion the application has sought to set out a phased retirement of Mr Lowry, former of New Steading Farm. However, given the lack of a spatial, functional, legal or familial link between the dwelling proposed and New Steading Farm it cannot be concluded that the dwelling would support the retirement succession of a viable farm unit and comply with NPF4 Policy 17. 3.11 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 (LDP) will only be supported in limited circumstances, in rural locations the proposal must be 148
Page 149
consistent with the policy on rural homes, which it is not in this case. Therefore, it does not fully comply with relevant policies on rural homes and therefore contravenes NPF4 Policy 16. 3.12 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. SLLDP2: Policy GBR10 Accommodation associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business requires to demonstrate that the house is linked to a viable agricultural enterprise. 3.13 The proposed retirement house has not been demonstrated as being functionally required for the running of New Steadings Farm, as referred to above in paras 3.7 – 3.10, it is clear the site is separated from the future operational boundaries of New Steadings Farm. The proposal does not accord with Policy GRA10 or Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 3.14 Layout, Siting and Design 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. 3.15 Previously, planning permission (Ref. P/24/0332) for a house on a site further along the farm access was refused because of its isolated nature. Since relocating to a field corner, adjoining the entrance of the farm access, that location allows a semblance of integration with two nearby dwellings and associated outbuildings. 3.16 Although there are elements of the design which are acceptable such as a slate roof, chimneys and quoins, generally the house has a suburban appearance, inappropriate to a rural setting. Suburban components include an L-shaped footprint, shallow roof pitch on the eastern gable, a dry dash finish and windows and integral garage door with a horizontal emphasis. Attempts to improve the design have been resisted on grounds that the design is not dissimilar to nearby dwellings. However, the houses referred to were built more than twenty years ago. It is important that past developments should not set a continuing precedence justifying suburban development now and into the future, at the expense of aspirations to improve design quality in the countryside. 3.17 The applicant submitted a further Supporting Statement citing the recent approvals of a dwelling at Mousebank Road (P/20/0971 & P/21/1882) and claims that as these are similar, again sets a precedence justifying the chosen design. However, there are differences in the Mousebank house design in that mullions have been used to create a vertical emphasis to the windows, the walls will be finished in render rather than the 149
Page 150
suburban finish of dry dash. The development can visually integrate with the two existing dwellings creating a tight cohesive building group. At the New Steadings site, the nearest dwellings are not as close, sit downhill and are visually screened by vegetation and an outbuilding, therefore in that instance, the proposed dwelling would have more of a standalone appearance. The planning system is not beholden to past decisions, and a previous approved house design is not set in stone, creating a precedence whereby it will always be acceptable, otherwise planning guidance and policy could not evolve to take account of the cumulative impact of past decision making on the character of the rural area. 3.18 The design of the dwelling is suburban in appearance, and 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. 3.19 Policy 15 Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods states: ‘Development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to: sustainable access (including local public transport and safe, high quality walking, wheeling and cycling networks), employment, shopping, health and social care facilities, schools and play areas.’ 3.20 The site is in a rural location where many of the characteristics of the 20-minute neighbourhood or achieving wider local living aspirations are not possible. National policy accepts that a retirement succession home is, in principle, acceptable and in a rural location, where a 20 minute neighbourhood is unrealistic, can be justified. 3.21 Natural and Historic Environment NPF4 Policy 3 Biodiversity under part (c) details that all local developments shall include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. The Development with Nature Guidance is pertinent in this case. The guidance encourages a mitigation hierarchy to be applied – avoid, minimise, restore, and offset to achieve a net positive biodiversity impact. 3.22 The applicant has indicated that existing trees within the site will be retained and replaced where necessary. Also, the Planning Statement refers to an intention to plant a hedgerow along the northern and eastern boundaries. As the site comprises managed agricultural grassland, the proposal will not have a significant impact upon protected habitats or species. Therefore, the proposal accords with NPF4 Policy 3. 3.23 NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places, SLLDP2 Policies 14 – Natural and Historic Environment and NHE16 – Landscape emphasises that development proposals within Special Landscape Areas will only be permitted where they can be accommodated without having an unacceptable significant adverse effect on the landscape character, scenic interest and special qualities and features for which the area has been designated. SLLDP2 Policy NHE16 further advice all proposed development should take into account the detailed guidance contained in the South Lanarkshire Landscape Character Assessment 2010. The site falls within the Rolling Farmland Landscape type where developments should be located to maximise natural screening and integration. Medium to large scale modifications to undulating topography should be resisted. 150
Page 151
3.24 The proposed site sits relatively close to an existing building group. Existing trees, hedgerows, topography and buildings provide a degree of screening. Additional landscaping would help the development blend into its setting, thereby avoiding adverse impacts upon landscape quality. No important landscape features are affected. In considering the above, the proposal does not compromise the objectives of NPF4 Policy 4 and SLLDP2 Policies 14 and NHE16. 3.25 Conclusion The design of the house is inappropriate for a rural location as it has a suburban appearance, countering local and national objectives to improve design quality in the countryside. The site of the proposed dwelling no longer falls within the ownership of New Steadings Farm and therefore it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed dwelling is required to support the retirement succession of a viable agricultural business. 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 4.1 The design of the house is inappropriate for a rural location as it has a suburban appearance, countering local and national objectives to improve design quality in the countryside. Also, as the site of the proposed dwelling falls out with the ownership of New Steadings Farm, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed dwelling supports the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Therefore, the proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Policies 14,16 and 17 of NPF4 and Policies 4, 5 GBRA1 and GBRA10 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Delegating officer: Date: Previous references P/24/0332 List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► National Planning Framework4 (adopted 2023) ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 28.07.2025 ► Consultations Roads Development Management Team 12.08.2 025 151
Page 152
Scottish Water 06.08.2 025 ► Representations None Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: - Ian Hamilton, Planning officer, Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: Email: Ian.hamilton@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 152
Page 153
Planning Application Application number: P/25/0448 Reasons for refusal 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area and GBRA10 - Accommodation associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed retirement house, being in separate ownership, has not been demonstrated as being functionally required for the running of New Steadings Farm. 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 14 - Design, Quality and Place of National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 16 - Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal is not fully consistent with the policy on rural homes. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 17 - Rural Housing of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal does not meet any of the exemptions to support a rural dwelling and due to a lack of a spatial, functional, legal or familial links, fails to demonstrate the dwelling is required for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Reason(s) for decision The design of the house is inappropriate for a rural location as it has a suburban appearance, countering local and national objectives to improve design quality in the countryside. Also, as the site of the proposed dwelling falls out with the ownership of New Steadings Farm, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed dwelling supports the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Therefore, the proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Policies 14,16 and 17 of NPF4 and Policies 4, 5 GBRA1 and GBRA10 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 153
Page 154
154
Page 155
Consultation Responses Response dated 5 August 2025 from Scottish Water Response dated 12 August 2025 from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Appendix 2(b) 5c 155
Page 156
156
Page 157
SW Internal General Tuesday, 05 August 2025 Local Planner Planning & Economic Development Community & Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council Hamilton ML3 8RE Dear Customer, New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark, ML11 7RB Planning Ref: P/25/0448 Our Ref: DSCAS-0137823-NYK Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access and off street parking Please quote our reference in all future correspondence Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. The applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Please read the following carefully as there may be further action required. Scottish Water would advise the following: Water Capacity Assessment • This proposed development is within the Camps Water Treatment Works catchment. Single house developments; unless utilising private water sources, are required to submit a Water Connection Application via our Customer Portal to allow us to fully appraise the proposals. We recommend that this is done at the earliest opportunity to allow for network appraisal to be carried out ahead of development proceeding. Waste Water Capacity Assessment • According to our records there is no public waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development therefore we would advise applicant to investigate private treatment options. Development Operations The Bridge Buchanan Gate Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6FB Development Operations Freephone Number - 0800 3890379 E-Mail - DevelopmentOperations@scottishwater.co.uk www.scottishwater.co.uk 5c 157
Page 158
SW Internal General Please Note The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works. When planning permission has been granted and a formal connection application has been submitted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. Surface Water For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges. In order to avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to our combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should refer to our guides which can be found at https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/Help-and-Resources/Document-Hub/Business-and- Developers/Connecting-to-Our-Network which detail our policy and processes to support the application process, evidence to support the intended drainage plan should be submitted at the technical application stage where we will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. Next Steps: Single house developments; unless utilising private water or drainage sources, are required to submit a Water Connection Application and Waste Water Application via our Customer Portal to allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Please note that Single House developments are not required to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry form (PDE) however local network capacity will be assessed on receipt of application forms. Further information on our application and connection process for Single Household development can be found on our website https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/Business- and-Developers/NEW-Connecting-to-Our-Network/Single-Household-Customers I trust the above is acceptable however if you require any further information regarding this matter, please contact me on 0800 389 0379 or via the e-mail address below or at planningconsultations@scottishwater.co.uk. Yours sincerely, Ruth Kerr Development Services Analyst PlanningConsultations@scottishwater.co.uk 158
Page 159
SW Internal General Scottish Water Disclaimer: “It is important to note that the information on any such plan provided on Scottish Water’s infrastructure, is for indicative purposes only and its accuracy cannot be relied upon. When the exact location and the nature of the infrastructure on the plan is a material requirement then you should undertake an appropriate site investigation to confirm its actual position in the ground and to determine if it is suitable for its intended purpose. By using the plan you agree that Scottish Water will not be liable for any loss, damage or costs caused by relying upon it or from carrying out any such site investigation." Supplementary Guidance • Scottish Water asset plans can be obtained from our appointed asset plan providers: • Site Investigation Services (UK) Ltd • Tel: 0333 123 1223 • Email: sw@sisplan.co.uk • www.sisplan.co.uk • Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements to be installed, subject to compliance with Water Byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area, then they should write to the Development Operations department at the above address. • If the connection to the public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. • Scottish Water may only vest new water or waste water infrastructure which is to be laid through land out with public ownership where a Deed of Servitude has been obtained in our favour by the developer. • The developer should also be aware that Scottish Water requires land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed. • Please find information on how to submit application to Scottish Water at our Customer Portal 159
Page 160
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services – Transportation Engineering Council Offices (Floor 7), Almada Street, Hamilton ML3 0AA Email: jill.davies@southlanarkshire.gov.uk To: Planning Planning Application No: P/25/0448 Case Officer: Ian Hamilton From: Development Management Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Contact: Jill Davies Phone Ext: 07795455528 Date: 12 August 2025 Subject: OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION P/25/0448 Location: New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Cartland, Lanark, ML11 7RB I refer to the above application dated 28th July 2025, received on 30th July 2025. This application is for the erection of detached dwellinghouse with access and off street parking. The proposed property will access onto an existing private access to New Steading Farm. This access is well established onto Greentowers Road. The existing visibility splay at the junction is acceptable. A visibility splay of 2m x 20m is required from the dwelling onto the private access. The parking requirements for the three bedroom house is two car parking spaces. These spaces should be in units of 6 by 3metres and a turning area should be provided. These are marked on the submitted drawing No PL-LAY-11. There is a requirement to install an electric vehicle charging point within the driveway. In conclusion, this service would offer no objections subject to the following conditions being applied. • 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. • That a visibility splay of 2m x 20m shall be provided from the driveway onto the private access. No objects greater than the height of 900mm located within this splay. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. 160
Page 161
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 5d 161
Page 162
162
Page 163
5d 163
Page 164
Photo 1 looking east 164
Page 165
Photo 2 looking north 165
Page 166
Photo 3 looking south 166
Page 167
Photo 4 looking east 167
Page 168
Photo 5 looking west 168
Page 169
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 5e 169
Page 170
170
Page 171
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 Thomas Cochrane Planning Services UK 37 Dyfrig Street Shotts ML7 4DQ Our Ref: P/25/0448 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Ian Hamilton Date: 8 December 2025 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access and off street parking Site address: New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark, ML11 7RB Application no: P/25/0448 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: 5e 171
Page 172
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr David Lowry Per: Thomas Cochrane Newsteading Farm , Lanark , ML11 7RB 37 Dyfrig Street , Shotts , ML7 4DQ With reference to your application received on 18.04.2025 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access and off street parking Site location: New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark, ML11 7RB 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: 8th December 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/25/0448 172
Page 173
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/25/0448 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area and GBRA10 - Accommodation associated with an Existing or Proposed Rural Business of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed retirement house, being in separate ownership, has not been demonstrated as being functionally required for the running of New Steadings Farm. 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 14 - Design, Quality and Place of National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 16 - Quality Homes of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal is not fully consistent with the policy on rural homes. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 17 - Rural Housing of National Planning Framework 4 as the proposal does not meet any of the exemptions to support a rural dwelling and due to a lack of a spatial, functional, legal or familial links, fails to demonstrate the dwelling is required for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Reason(s) for decision The design of the house is inappropriate for a rural location as it has a suburban appearance, countering local and national objectives to improve design quality in the countryside. Also, as the site of the proposed dwelling falls out with the ownership of New Steadings Farm, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed dwelling supports the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Therefore, the proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Policies 14,16 and 17 of NPF4 and Policies 4, 5, GBRA1 and GBRA10 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 173
Page 174
Notes to applicant Application number: P/25/0448 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 PL-LOC-01 D Refused PL-LAY-01 C Refused Visibility Splay Refused PL-LAY-10 B Refused PL-LAY-11 C Refused PL-LAY-012 A Refused PL-LAY-013 A Refused PL-LAY-015 A Refused 174
Page 175
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. 175
Page 176
176
Page 177
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant David Lowry Appendix 5 5f 177
Page 178
178
Page 179
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 100736974-001 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 Planning Services UK Thomas Cochrane Dyfrig Street 37 01412666666 ML7 4DQ United Kingdom Shotts planning-applications@planning-services.co.uk 5f 179
Page 180
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 NEW STEADINGS FARM David South Lanarkshire Council Lowry New Steading Farm New Steading Farm LANARK ML11 7RB ML11 7RB Scotland 645169 Lanark 287280 180
Page 181
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 with associated access and off street parking see appeal statement 181
Page 182
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. Drawings design justification Planning statement Appeal Statement P/25/0448 08/12/2025 18/04/2025 182
Page 183
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 Thomas Cochrane Declaration Date: 18/12/2025 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 18/12/2025 14:34 183
Page 184
184
Page 185
1 Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. Background & Site Context ................................................................................................. 3 3. Consolidated Appeal Statement ......................................................................................... 4 A. Functional Need & Farm Succession (NPF4 Policy 17 / SLLDP2 GBRA10) .......................... 4 A1. Viable farm unit and succession process accepted .................................................... 4 A2. Retirement dwelling is essential to succession ........................................................... 4 A3. Ownership is not a policy test .................................................................................... 4 A4. Ongoing agricultural involvement confirms need ........................................................ 5 A5. The refusal introduces non-policy criteria ................................................................... 5 B. Design, Rural Integration & Landscape (NPF4 Policy 14 / SLLDP2 5 & GBRA1) .................... 6 B1. Contextual rural design ............................................................................................. 6 B2. Delegated Report contradictions ............................................................................... 6 B3. Cluster consolidation ................................................................................................ 6 B4. Landscape & biodiversity impacts .............................................................................. 6 C. Human Rights & Proportionality (Article 8 ECHR & A1P1) ..................................................... 6 D. Exceptional Personal Circumstances & Hardship (Material Consideration) ........................... 7 D1. Legal basis ................................................................................................................... 7 D2. Exceptional circumstances ........................................................................................... 7 D2.1 Ill health ................................................................................................................. 7 D2.2 Necessity of early farm sale ..................................................................................... 7 D2.3 The Catch-22 .......................................................................................................... 7 D2.4 These circumstances are material ........................................................................... 8 D3. 23-year residence & rural community ties .................................................................. 8 Conclusion of Section D .................................................................................................. 8 4. Rebuttal Schedule: Detailed Response to Each Refusal Reason ........................................... 8 4.1. Refusal Reason 01 – Functional Need Not Demonstrated .............................................. 8 4.2. Refusal Reason 02 – Suburbanisation / Rural Character ................................................. 9 4.3. Refusal Reason 03 – Not Consistent with NPF4’s Six Qualities of Successful Places ....... 9 4.4. Refusal Reason 04 – Not Fully Consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) ............ 10 4.5. Refusal Reason 05 – No Functional, Spatial, Legal or Familial Link ............................... 10 5. Additional Rebuttals to Delegated Report .......................................................................... 11 5.1 Failure to Consider Personal Circumstances as Required by Law .................................. 11 5.2 Incorrect Interpretation of “Succession” Under NPF4 Policy 17 ..................................... 11 5.3 Contradictory Statements on Design and Integration .................................................... 12 5.4 No Objective Assessment to Support “Suburbanisation” Claim .................................... 12 185
Page 186
2 5.5 Dismissal of Nearby Dwellings on Grounds of Age Is Contrary to Planning Principles ..... 12 5.6 Inadequate Consideration of Landscape and Visual Evidence ...................................... 12 5.7 Failure to Recognise the Cluster Location of the Site .................................................... 13 5.8 No Weight Given to Agricultural Viability or Rural Economic Sustainability..................... 13 5.9 Failure to Consider ECHR Obligations .......................................................................... 13 5.10 Failure to Consider Transitional Arrangements (Contractual Obligations) .................... 14 5.11 The Report Contains Policy Tests Not Found in NPF4 .................................................. 14 Appendix A: An Extract from Planning 5th Edition by Neil Collar, Legal Associate of the Royal Town Planning Institute......................................................................................................... 16 186
Page 187
3 1. Introduction This submission is made under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), seeking review of the refusal of planning permission for a proposed Farmer's retirement dwelling at New Steadings Farm, Lanark. The proposed dwelling is essential to the retirement succession of a viable farm holding, in accordance with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 17. The dwelling is sensitively designed, integrates with the established rural cluster, presents no landscape harm, and delivers biodiversity benefits. The refusal is founded upon: • misinterpretation of NPF4 Policies 16 and 17, • incorrect application of SLLDP2 policies, • internally inconsistent design reasoning, • disregard of material considerations, • and a failure to consider human rights and exceptional personal circumstances. This Appeal Submission comprises: • A. Functional Need & Succession Justification • B. Design, Integration & Landscape Justification • C. Human Rights Assessment • D. Exceptional Personal Circumstances & Hardship • Rebuttal Schedule to Each Refusal Reason • Additional Rebuttals to the Delegated Report • Final Planning Balance & Conclusion 2. Background & Site Context New Steadings Farm is a long-established livestock enterprise. Mr Lowry has operated the farm for over 23 years. During that time, he developed a thriving pedigree breeding herd and deep- rooted social, agricultural and community ties within the rural area. Due to declining health, Mr Lowry was compelled to sell the wider farm to AK Hill Contracts. As part of the sale agreement: • Mr Lowry continues as Farm Manager during the transition period; • He retains 20 pedigree cattle on rented land within the holding; • He will remain engaged as a consultant to the farm post-retirement, as his unique specialist breeding expertise is essential to maintaining the viability and continuity of the herd. 187
Page 188
4 • The farmhouse must become the residence of the new incoming farm manager; • The applicant retained ownership of a portion of land for the proposed retirement dwelling to facilitate succession. The application site lies immediately adjacent to the farm entrance within an identifiable group of dwellings, forming a coherent rural cluster. The Delegated Report acknowledges the submitted Business Plan and viability of the farm, and confirms Mr Lowry’s continued involvement in operations and livestock management. 3. Consolidated Appeal Statement A. Functional Need & Farm Succession (NPF4 Policy 17 / SLLDP2 GBRA10) A1. Viable farm unit and succession process accepted The Delegated Report explicitly acknowledges: • the farm remains viable; • the applicant continues in an operational role; • succession arrangements exist involving appointment of a new farm manager; • the applicant remains involved in cattle management. A2. Retirement dwelling is essential to succession NPF4 Policy 17(a)(vi) supports a single home required for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. Succession cannot proceed unless: • the applicant vacates the farmhouse; • the new manager occupies the farmhouse; • The applicant is required to remain on-site throughout the transition and will continue post-retirement to provide specialist knowledge essential to the herd’s continuity. • The retirement dwelling is constructed. This is a direct application of Policy 17, satisfying its precise intention. A3. Ownership is not a policy test The refusal incorrectly relies on the fact that the farm is under new ownership. NPF4 Policy 17 does not require: • family succession, • retained ownership of the farm, 188
Page 189
5 • or a legal tie binding the dwelling to the entire holding. The correct test is functional necessity, which is demonstrated and accepted. A3A. Succession Under NPF4 Does Not Require a Family Relationship For clarity, NPF4 Policy 17(a)(vi) refers to “retirement succession of a viable farm holding.” Planning policy and common agricultural practice make clear that succession does not require the successor to be a family member. Succession includes: • transfer of operational control to a new owner, • appointment of an incoming full-time farm manager, • continuation of the enterprise by any competent agricultural successor. Nowhere in NPF4 or the South Lanarkshire LDP is “succession” defined as familial succession. The introduction of such a requirement in the Delegated Report is therefore incorrect in law and inconsistent with established planning principles. In this case, succession is occurring through: • sale of the holding to a new operator, • appointment of an incoming manager, and • the applicant’s phased withdrawal from operations once a retirement dwelling is available. This represents a lawful and policy-compliant form of agricultural succession. A4. Ongoing agricultural involvement confirms need Mr Lowry continues: • daily involvement with livestock, • management of 20 retained cattle still in his ownership, • essential specialist breeding oversight during transition and being retained as a part- time consultant after his retirement. This constitutes a clear functional connection to the holding. A5. The refusal introduces non-policy criteria The refusal references familial, spatial, legal and ownership links that do not appear anywhere in Policy 17 or SLLDP2. Conclusion of Section A: The proposed dwelling is essential to the retirement succession process and fully complies with NPF4 Policy 17. 189
Page 190
6 B. Design, Rural Integration & Landscape (NPF4 Policy 14 / SLLDP2, 5 & GBRA1) B1. Contextual rural design The T-shaped building form is: • traditional in rural Scotland; • evidenced by eight comparable dwellings within 1.5 km of the site; • aligned with two adjacent dwellings within the cluster. Fenestration, materials, proportions and roof profiles reinforce the rural vernacular. B2. Delegated Report contradictions Paragraph 3.15 acknowledges integration with nearby dwellings; paragraph 3.17 claims the dwelling will appear standalone. These positions are incompatible. B3. Cluster consolidation The dwelling: • sits at the cluster entrance, • avoids ribbon development, • maintains rural density and spacing. B4. Landscape & biodiversity impacts The Delegated Report confirms: • no significant adverse landscape effects; • no loss of important features; • the site benefits from natural screening; • additional hedgerow planting provides biodiversity gain. Applicant-provided topographical modelling confirms minimal visibility. Conclusion of Section B: Design and siting fully comply with NPF4 Policy 14 and SLLDP2 Policies 5 and GBRA1. C. Human Rights & Proportionality (Article 8 ECHR & A1P1) Refusal interferes with Mr Lowry’s rights to respect for: • private life, 190
Page 191
7 • family life, • home, • and continuity of long-standing community and agricultural relationships. Succession in planning policy does not require family transfer. Under NPF4 Policy 17, “retirement succession” refers to the orderly handover of responsibility for a viable agricultural holding, whether to a relative, a purchaser, or an incoming manager. Where a farmer such as Mr Lowry has lived on the holding for over 23 years, developed extensive community and agricultural ties, and remains involved in livestock care, forcing him to relocate to a distant settlement would constitute a serious interference with his Article 8 rights. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that long-established residence, deep community ties, and continuity of rural life fall within “private life” and “home” (e.g., Connors v UK, Buckley v UK, Chapman v UK). Any displacement must therefore be justified by a compelling public interest. In this case, no such justification exists: the proposal generates no landscape harm, no amenity harm, and is supported by policy. Requiring him to move away from the land and community to which he has belonged for decades would therefore be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights and is a material consideration of significant weight. D. Exceptional Personal Circumstances & Hardship (Material Consideration) D1. Legal basis Planning Law, 5th Edition, para. 5.75 states: see Appendix A • Personal circumstances may be considered where refusal would cause great hardship. • Human rights considerations may make personal circumstances material. D2. Exceptional circumstances D2.1 Ill health Mr Lowry’s health no longer permits full farm management. D2.2 Necessity of early farm sale Waiting for a planning decision would have: • harmed livestock welfare, • disrupted specialist breeding lines, • caused severe stress, • threatened the farm’s viability. D2.3 The Catch-22 • He had to sell the farm due to ill health. 191
Page 192
8 • He must remain on-site to support the transition and care for retained cattle. • The farmhouse must be vacated for the incoming manager. • Therefore, the retirement dwelling is essential. D2.4 These circumstances are material They are exceptional, evidenced, and directly relevant to land use. D3. 23-year residence & rural community ties Mr Lowry has lived at New Steadings Farm for over 23 years, forming deep community bonds and agricultural networks. Forcing relocation away from his social and farming community— with no public interest justification, would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights. Conclusion of Section D: These circumstances significantly strengthen the case for granting permission. 4. Rebuttal Schedule: Detailed Response to Each Refusal Reason 4.1. Refusal Reason 01 – Functional Need Not Demonstrated Rebuttal 4.1.1 Functional need is explicitly acknowledged in the Delegated Report. The report confirms that Mr Lowry continues to operate as Farm Manager during the transition period and remains involved in livestock management and specialist cattle breeding (paras 3.5–3.6). This directly contradicts the assertion that no functional link exists. 4.1.2 Ownership is not a policy test under NPF4 Policy 17. Policy 17(a)(vi) requires only that the dwelling support the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. It does not stipulate that the applicant must still own the wider holding. The refusal introduces policy tests that do not exist and must therefore be disregarded. 4.1.3 Succession cannot proceed without the retirement dwelling. • The farmhouse must be occupied by the incoming full-time farm manager; • Mr Lowry must vacate the farmhouse; • He cannot vacate unless he has a dwelling on-site; • Therefore, the retirement dwelling is operationally indispensable. 4.1.4 Ongoing agricultural involvement confirms spatial and functional necessity. Mr Lowry retains 20 cattle on rented land and continues to support the new owner during transition. Proximity is essential to the welfare of the animals and continuity of the holding. 192
Page 193
9 4.1.5 This is a classic retirement-succession case contemplated by Policy 17. Succession does not require familial transfer; commercial transfer with retained involvement is recognised practice. Conclusion: This refusal reason is unsound. Functional need is proven, acknowledged by the Council, and directly aligned with Policy 17(a)(vi). 4.2. Refusal Reason 02 – Suburbanisation / Rural Character Rebuttal 4.2.1 Design is consistent with established rural forms in the area. The Design Justification Statement identifies eight T-shaped dwellings within 1.5 km and additional examples within the immediate cluster — demonstrating clear local precedent. 4.2.2 The delegated report contradicts itself. Paragraph 3.15 states the dwelling integrates with nearby buildings; paragraph 3.17 claims it will appear standalone. These positions cannot both be true, casting doubt upon the reliability of the assessment. 4.2.3 The dwelling strengthens an existing cluster. It is positioned to visually relate to two existing dwellings and the steading. It does not project into open countryside. 4.2.4 No objective analysis of suburbanisation is provided. The refusal makes subjective statements without any design appraisal, no character analysis, no comparison of proportion, scale, ridge height or materials. 4.2.5 Past nearby houses cannot be dismissed as “20 years old.” Established rural character is shaped by existing built form regardless of construction date. Conclusion: The design is rural, contextually appropriate, and satisfies NPF4 Policy 14 and SLLDP2 Policies 5 and GBRA1. 4.3. Refusal Reason 03 – Not Consistent with NPF4’s Six Qualities of Successful Places Rebuttal 4.3.1 The six qualities are fully met, as demonstrated in the Planning Statement: o Distinctive: Derived from local forms and materials. o Safe & Pleasant: Single-storey accessible accommodation for a retiring farmer. o Welcoming: Sits within an existing cluster. 193
Page 194
10 o Easy to Move Around: Utilises existing access and infrastructure. o Adaptable: Designed for long-term flexibility in retirement. o Resource-Efficient: Includes solar panels and minimal ground disturbance. 4.3.2 The officer report does not identify any specific deficiency. It merely asserts non-compliance without analysis. Unsupported conclusions do not satisfy policy-based reasoning. 4.3.3 Policy 14 is satisfied on all measurable criteria. Conclusion: Reason 03 is unsubstantiated and should be given no weight. 4.4. Refusal Reason 04 – Not Fully Consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) Rebuttal 4.4.1 Policy 16 operates as a gateway test, requiring rural homes to comply with Policy 17. Once Policy 17 is satisfied (as shown above), Policy 16 is met. 4.4.2 The dwelling is of high quality and in an appropriate location. It supports rural living, succession, and the continuity of an established enterprise. 4.4.3 The authority misapplied Policy 16. It cannot be used as a standalone refusal reason when Policy 17 criteria are achieved. Conclusion: This refusal reason falls away entirely once functional need is correctly understood. 4.5. Refusal Reason 05 – No Functional, Spatial, Legal or Familial Link Rebuttal 4.5.1 Functional link: The applicant continues daily farm management and retains livestock involvement. 4.5.2 Spatial link: The site is immediately adjacent to the farm access and located within an existing building cluster. 4.5.3 Legal link: A contractual succession and management agreement exists between the applicant and the new owner. 4.5.4 Familial link: Not required by NPF4 Policy 17. The policy does not mention family succession — only viable farm succession. 194
Page 195
11 4.5.5 The refusal invents criteria not present in policy. These additions are contrary to lawful interpretation of planning policy. Conclusion: Reason 05 is fundamentally flawed and cannot withstand policy scrutiny. 5. Additional Rebuttals to Delegated Report In addition to rebutting the formal reasons for refusal, the Delegated Report contains several errors of interpretation, omissions, and inconsistencies that materially undermine the decision. These issues are addressed below. 5.1 Failure to Consider Personal Circumstances as Required by Law The report fails entirely to consider: • the applicant’s deteriorating health, • his 23-year residence at the farm, • his relationship to the immediate area, • his essential role in managing retained livestock, • and the exceptional hardship that refusal would cause. Paragraph 5.75 of Planning Law, 5th Edition explicitly states that personal circumstances must be considered where refusal would cause great hardship, particularly where human rights are engaged. The authority’s failure to do so is a significant omission and a material error in law. 5.2 Incorrect Interpretation of “Succession” Under NPF4 Policy 17 The report repeatedly implies that succession requires: • a family relationship, • legal ownership of the wider holding, or • continuity of title. This is incorrect. NPF4 Policy 17(a)(vi) refers to retirement succession of a viable farm holding, not familial succession. Succession includes: • transfer of operational responsibility to a new owner, • appointment of an incoming manager, • or continuation of the enterprise by any competent successor. 195
Page 196
12 The Council’s insistence on familial or ownership-based succession is unsupported by policy, statute, or case law, and must be discounted. 5.3 Contradictory Statements on Design and Integration The Delegated Report contains internally inconsistent statements: • At para. 3.15, it states the dwelling achieves “a semblance of integration” with the existing building cluster. • At para. 3.17, it asserts the dwelling will appear standalone. These contradictory conclusions undermine the credibility of the design assessment. The design evidence submitted by the applicant unambiguously demonstrates cluster integration. 5.4 No Objective Assessment to Support “Suburbanisation” Claim The report asserts the design is “suburban” but: • provides no analysis of massing, • no reference to nearby rural typologies, • no evaluation of fenestration, materials, or building form, • and no character appraisal. A planning authority must provide evidence-based reasoning. The absence of any objective assessment renders this conclusion unreliable. 5.5 Dismissal of Nearby Dwellings on Grounds of Age Is Contrary to Planning Principles The report dismisses the clear design precedent of nearby dwellings because they are “20 years old”. This is a misunderstanding of rural character assessment. Character is derived from existing built form, not its construction date. Established dwellings are highly relevant to determining context. 5.6 Inadequate Consideration of Landscape and Visual Evidence The applicant submitted: • topographical analysis, • visualisations, • and landscape assessment. 196
Page 197
13 These were either: • not mentioned, • not factored into the reasoning, or • dismissed without explanation. The report simultaneously acknowledges no significant landscape harm, which further undermines its refusal basis. 5.7 Failure to Recognise the Cluster Location of the Site Despite acknowledging the presence of two adjacent dwellings and the farm entrance, the officer attempts to characterise the site as “standalone”. This is factually incorrect and demonstrates: • an overly rigid interpretation of “cluster”, and • a failure to apply the flexible, context-led approach required by NPF4 Policy 14 and SLLDP2. 5.8 No Weight Given to Agricultural Viability or Rural Economic Sustainability The continued viability of New Steadings Farm: • depends on the incoming manager occupying the farmhouse, • depends on the applicant remaining on-site during transition, • and benefits significantly from the applicant’s specialist knowledge post-retirement. NPF4 emphasises supporting rural economy and agricultural continuity. The Delegated Report provides no balancing exercise weighing these benefits. 5.9 Failure to Consider ECHR Obligations Refusal forces the applicant: • to leave his home of 23 years, • to sever long-established community ties, • and to relocate in ill health away from essential livestock under his care. The report does not mention Article 8 ECHR or A1P1, despite these rights being clearly engaged. This omission represents a significant procedural defect. Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) – Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions 197
Page 198
14 Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights protects an individual’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, which includes land, property interests, and legitimate expectations relating to the use of that property. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, planning authorities and Local Review Bodies must act compatibly with A1P1 when determining applications. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed in cases such as Sporrong & Lönnroth v Sweden and James v UK that a planning decision may amount to an interference with A1P1 where it prevents an individual from making reasonable and legitimate use of their own land, or where it places an excessive burden on the applicant without sufficient justification. In this case, the application site is land retained by Mr Lowry expressly for the purpose of constructing his retirement dwelling as part of the agreed succession arrangements. Preventing him from using his own land for this legitimate, essential purpose—particularly where there is no identified planning harm—constitutes an interference with his A1P1 rights. Any such interference must be proportionate and supported by a compelling public interest. Here, none has been demonstrated. Refusing a retirement dwelling that is required to complete farm succession, maintain livestock care, and avoid displacing the applicant from his home and community of 23 years imposes an individual burden that is excessive and unjustified. As such, the refusal engages A1P1 and must be afforded significant weight in the planning balance. 5.10 Failure to Consider Transitional Arrangements (Contractual Obligations) The sale agreement requires: • the farmhouse to be occupied by the incoming manager, • the applicant to vacate the farmhouse, • and the applicant to support the holding during transition. These are material considerations. Their complete omission from the Delegated Report is a planning judgment error. 5.11 The Report Contains Policy Tests Not Found in NPF4 The report invents new requirements such as: • familial connection, • ownership continuity, • or an enforceable land tie. None of these appear in NPF4 or local policy. Introducing non-policy tests renders the decision unreasonable and unsound. 198
Page 199
199
Page 200
200
Page 201
17 201
Page 202
202
Page 203
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. Design Approach ................................................................................................................ 2 3. Policy Support .................................................................................................................... 2 4. Local Precedent ................................................................................................................. 3 5. The Applicant’s Position on Design ...................................................................................... 3 6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3 Appendix 1: Locality of similar designed houses ..................................................................... 4 Appendix 2 Fenestrations ...................................................................................................... 8 203
Page 204
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration 1. Introduction This Design Justification Statement has been prepared to address the specific design matters raised by the Planning Officer. The purpose is to demonstrate that the proposed T-shaped dwelling form and associated fenestration design are contextually appropriate, reflect established rural building traditions, and are fully in accordance with adopted planning policy and national design guidance. 2. Design Approach The proposal adopts a T-shaped plan form, historically associated with agricultural dwellings across Scotland. This form was chosen to: • Echo traditional building language of rural farmsteads; • Create a balanced and proportionate elevation when viewed from public vantage points. The fenestration design was carefully considered and intentionally references the two existing properties forming part of the cluster. Window proportions, spacing, and rhythm were designed to: • Maintain visual coherence with the neighbouring dwellings; • Reinforce the sense of an integrated grouping rather than a standalone, unrelated dwelling. 3. Policy Support LDP2 – Policy 5 (Development Management and Placemaking) Policy 5 requires development to respect its surroundings and reflect local building traditions. Both the T-shaped form and the carefully proportioned fenestration satisfy this policy requirement by producing a contextually sympathetic design. NPF4 – Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) This policy calls for high-quality development that contributes positively to its setting. The proposal achieves this through: • A plan form consistent with rural typologies. • Fenestration that matches the scale and character of the cluster properties. • Avoidance of design elements that would appear visually intrusive or inconsistent. PAN 72 – Housing in the Countryside PAN 72 encourages sympathetic siting and design, with careful consideration of scale, proportion, and detailing. The proposal’s window and door design reflect the locally accepted design. 204
Page 205
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration 4. Local Precedent Within a 1.5 km radius of the site, eight existing T-shaped dwellings have been identified (see Appendix 1). This confirms the prevalence of the proposed building form and supports the argument that the development would contribute to, rather than detract from, the local character. The fenestration pattern has been selected to complement the nearest two dwellings, thereby strengthening the visual cohesiveness of the cluster. 5. The Applicant’s Position on Design Our client considers both the T-shaped plan and the associated fenestration pattern integral to the design rationale. While minor adjustments to fenestration detail could be considered if necessary, the overall pattern and proportion would be retained to maintain coherence with the cluster. The client would be unwilling to alter the overall building form as this would undermine its relationship with local precedent. It is also relevant to note that, once constructed, alterations to windows and doors would fall under permitted development rights, allowing a return to the original fenestration arrangement without further consent. 6. Conclusion The proposed development: • Employs a T-shaped plan consistent with established rural typologies; • Uses fenestration design deliberately aligned with the two adjacent properties forming part of the cluster; • Complies with LDP2 Policy 5, NPF4 Policy 14, and PAN 72 guidance; • Demonstrates that both form and detailing contribute positively to the established rural character. It is therefore submitted that the proposal represents an appropriate and policy-compliant design solution that should be supported as submitted. 205
Page 206
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration Appendix 1: Locality of similar designed houses Yellow 6Km Radius Red T shaped rural house, either isolated of within a rural cluster. 13 in total 206
Page 207
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration 8 T shaped properties within a 1.5Km Radius 207
Page 208
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration The nearest T shaped house 130 m and within the localised cluster, indicated in red Location of proposed dwelling in yellow 208
Page 209
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration Next nearest T shaped house 560m at Old Greentowers Farm 209
Page 210
Design Justification Statement – T-Shaped Building Form and Fenestration Appendix 2 Fenestrations 210
Page 211
Strictly Private and Confidential PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT For Newsteadings Farm Cartland Lanark This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of the above business based on information supplied, and no responsibility can be accepted for actions taken by any third party arising from their interpretation of the information contained in this document. No other party may rely on the report and if they do it is at their own risk. Morningside Rural Consultants Ltd Morningside Farm Bungalow Mill Rd Morningside Wishaw ML8 5GH Tel: 07540383031 (John) Email: john@morningsiderural.co.uk Web: www.morningsiderural.co.uk 211
Page 212
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 NEWSTEADINGS AND MORNINGSIDE FARMS 2.1 BUSINESS OVERVIEW 2.2 LAND AND LIVESTOCK SUMMARY 3.0 LABOUR REQUIREMENT FOR A K HILL AGRI CONTRACTS 4.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 4.1 THE SITE 4.2 STOCK WELFARE 4.3 BIOSECURITY 4.4 SECURITY and SAFETY 4.5 FARM LABOUR and WORKING PRACTICES 4.6 ACCOMMODATION 4.7 FUTURE OF THE BUSINESS AT NEWSTEADINGS 5.0 CONCLUSION 212
Page 213
3 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared to justify a retirement home on the farm for David Lowry the outgoing farmer. As Davids family have decided not to take over the business from their father the opportunity of buying the farm was afforded to A K Hill Agri Contracts (AKH). We have based this report on AKH taking over the farm and AKH’s farm worker moving into the farmhouse at Newsteadings. 213
Page 214
4 2.0 NEWSTEADINGS AND MORNINGSIDE FARMS 2.1 BUSINESS OVERVIEW The farm is now a beef farm extending to around 436 acres (ac) (140ac @ Newsteadings and the rest at Morningside) plus a further 530ac rented seasonally. This land is all very good ground for rearing livestock and growing crops. The business has around 700 cattle comprising 96 suckler cows and followers along with 450-470 store cattle at various stages of finishing. The other unit is Morningside Farm where most of the breeding cattle and finishing cattle are kept. The seasonal lets are taken for silage making, growing barley and grazing of livestock. 200acres (80.94ha) of silage will be cut three times yearly and ensiled in a clamp for winter fodder. There are clamps at both Newsteadings and Morningside. Concentrated feed is bought in from various merchants to mix with the silage in a ration to suit the type of animals being fed whether it is suckler cows, store cattle or replacement heifers. 128ac of Spring Barley is also grown for supplementary feeding and the straw is used for bedding the livestock. Newsteadings is classified mainly as 41 according to the MLURI Land Classification System. Land of this classification is not considered to be prime agricultural land, which is most frequently described at land categories 1, 2 and 3¹. Morningside is classified as 42 which is also not considered prime agricultural land but is perfectly good for livestock production under the correct management. 214
Page 215
5 2.2 LAND AND LIVESTOCK SUMMARY Land Use Hectares Acres Silage 80.94 200.00 Grassland 255.77 632.00 Barley 51.80 128.00 Total 388.51 960.00 Livestock Number Suckler Cows 96 Breeding Bulls 3 Replacement Heifers 17 Calves 12-24 months 287 Calves 0-12 months 301 Wintering Lambs 400 215
Page 216
6 3.0 LABOUR REQUIREMENT FOR A K HILL AGRI CONTRACTS Using data from SAC’s Farm Management Handbook 2023/2024, the required hours for the enterprises for A K Hill are as follows. Farm Labour Requirements Description Unit Hours per unit Number of Units Total Hours Improved Grassland Ha 3.1 0 Silage 1st cut Ha 26.3 80.94 2128.722 Silage 2nd cut Ha 26.3 80.94 2128.722 Silage 3rd cut Ha 26.3 80.94 Breeding Cows Number 96 70 6720 Breeding Heifers Number 17 12 204 Bulls Number 3 10 30 Other cattle Number 12 588 7056 Other sheep LFA (lambs) Number 3.1 400 1240 Total Hours 19507.444 Labour Units (1900hrs/lu) = 10.27 216
Page 217
7 4.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 4.1 THE SITE Newsteadings Farm has its own private road extending to approximately 0.3 miles. It is accessed from the main A73 through Cartland Village via an unclassified road that leads to Lanark. Unfortunately, there has been crime in the area and the farm lost two quad bikes in the last two years. Siting the house where it is proposed will hopefully deter vagrants from entering the main farm steading as they will have to travel past the frontage of the house to get to the steading. The site of the proposed retirement home is not on prime agricultural land. The site is categorised 4¹ according to the MLURI agricultural classification scheme. Prime land is land categorised 1, 2 and 3¹. The preferred site of the proposed development will not involve the loss of any environmental features. 4.2 STOCK WELFARE Newsteadings is a predominantly grassland unit and will be used to graze and house cattle ranging from cows to youngstock. It will be run in conjunction with Morningside and the various seasonal lets AKH has. The daily feeding routines, animal handling and welfare considerations as well as quality assurance controls are such that labour must be always available. It is important to always have someone on site to monitor the livestock not just at calving time. The proposed site is in the area where the cattle will graze in Spring so this means that they will be monitored multiple times per day at peak times such as calving when they are susceptible to conditions such as grass staggers, calf scours and infections. 4.3 BIOSECURITY In accordance with the animal health code regarding biosecurity (introduced in November 2002 in the aftermath of Foot and Mouth Disease) all visitors to the farm must phone first to make an appointment and on arrival to the farm must directly to the farmhouse. It is therefore important that there is someone on site to prevent people wandering around the farm. All visitors must adhere to strict biosecurity procedures when they come onto the unit. 217
Page 218
8 4.4 SECURITY and SAFETY Newsteadings is near Cartland village and the road is used extensively by locals walking their dogs, cyclists and joggers. The farm has expensive livestock and machinery onsite it is beneficial to have someone onsite to ensure the security of the unit as intimated earlier a quad bike has recently been stolen by opportunist thieves. This location combined with the increasing awareness by the public of their access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, there is potential of safety and security problems on the farm from people not fully understanding their responsibilities in the countryside. The most notable problems are the risk of injury to the public by entering fields where there are grazing livestock (especially calving cows or cows with young calves at foot) and members of the public leaving gates open, which may allow stock to stray, putting others at risk. Sheep worrying by dogs is a major issue within Scottish agriculture currently and one which is currently being highlighted in the media with a campaign by Police Scotland and the Scottish National Farmers Union. To prevent these issues, a regular and constant presence on the unit is beneficial. The proposed house site is in between the main road and the farm steading which is an ideal location to stop and educate people on the issues/risks when accessing fields with cows and calves present. Another major concern with people encountering animals is Zoonoses. Zoonotic diseases are those which are transmissible from animals to humans including salmonella and E coli. This issue is of high importance and the government intervenes to control these diseases to protect public health. 4.5 FARM LABOUR and WORKING PRACTICES AKH is in sole charge of the farm with labour being provided by farm workers and David Lowry. David is still on site every day and his knowledge of the farm is a great help to AKH. Currently there is a deal in place that David gets to stay in the house until his new house is built then AKH will move a worker into the farmhouse. 218
Page 219
9 4.6 ACCOMMODATION The only accommodation on site is the farmhouse. There are no available buildings on the unit suitable for conversion. 4.7 FUTURE OF THE BUSINESS AT NEWSTEADINGS David Lowry has worked hard to establish a farming business at Newsteadings and over the years has improved the farm and livestock greatly. AKH has already started investing in sheds and improving the ground by growing break crops which will improve the organic matter and fertility of the soil. The addition of this unit to AKH’s current business will cement the future of his business for the future. 219
Page 220
10 5.0 CONCLUSION • The estimated annual labour requirement for the farming operations at Newsteadings and Morningside is 10.27 labour units based on current stock numbers. This type of unit and the stock carried therefore justifies ten full time workers and therefore a retirement home on the unit. • It is considered essential for welfare and security that all key members of staff are onsite therefore the a stockperson should be in the house at Newsteadings with AKH living onsite at Morningside Farm. It should be noted that there is no accommodation at Morningside Farm for a general farm worker. I • The location of the proposed retirement house at Newsteadings is not on prime agricultural land and does not pose any harmful threats or have a significant visual disturbance to the environment. • There are no existing buildings on the unit that can be utilised for living quarters. 220
Page 221
Planning Statement Proposed Retirement Dwelling at New Steading Farm, Green Towers Road, Cartland, Lanark Applicant: Mr David Lowry 221
Page 222
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Site Context and Proposal Description ..................................................................................................... 2 3. Planning Policy Context ........................................................................................................................ 3 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) ..................................................................................................... 3 South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) ................................................................ 3 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) ................................................... 3 4. Assessment Against Policy ............................................................................................................................. 3 NPF4 Policy 17 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 SLLDP2 Policy GBRA10 ............................................................................................................................ 4 4.2 Design and Siting .................................................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Landscape and Visual Impact ............................................................... 5 4.4 Integration with Rural Cluster .............................................................................................................. 5 4.5 Biodiversity Enhancement ............................................................................................................. 6 5. Material Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 6 6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 7 222
Page 223
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement 1.Introduction This Planning Statement supports a new full planning application for the erection of a single- storey dwelling at New Steading Farm, Cartland. The dwelling is proposed as a retirement home for the current farmer, enabling a farm succession process which secures the long-term viability of the holding and sustains agricultural use on-site. The proposed home will form part of an existing building cluster, positioned to respect the visual character of the Special Landscape Area (SLA) and consistent with national and local planning policy. This Statement outlines the design rationale, compliance with relevant planning policy, and addresses key planning considerations. 1.1 Succession Agreement and Ownership The agreement between the new owner Mr Hill and Mr Lowry stipulates that Mr Lowry will continue to run the farm as Farm Manager until he vacates the current farmhouse, which will occur once his new retirement dwelling is constructed. At that point, Mr Hill will appoint a new Farm Manager. Mr Lowry will then formally retire, although he will continue to assist, particularly with pedigree cattle. In terms of land ownership, Mr Lowry owns the area where the proposed house is to be located. This ownership was part of the deal agreed during the sale of the farm. 2.Site Context and Proposal Description The site lies to the south of Green Towers Road and forms part of a rural cluster of dwellings and farm buildings. It benefits from existing access, is well-screened by topography, and is set back from active farm operations to ensure amenity and safety for the retiring occupant. The proposal seeks permission for a single-storey dwelling, sensitively designed and located within the red line boundary to visually integrate with surrounding development while preserving the character of the SLA. A 3D visualisation demonstrates that the proposed site benefits from natural topographical screening, with minimal visual intrusion when viewed from the wider landscape. Using Topographic software, we can show that the proposed house, circled in red will have a minimal impact on the Special Landscape area. 223
Page 224
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement 3.Planning Policy Context The proposal has been assessed against the following: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) o Policy 4: Natural Places o Policy 14: Design, Quality and Place o Policy 17: Rural Homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) o Policy GBRA10: Housing in the Green Belt and Rural Area o Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking o Policy 14 / NHE16: Special Landscape Areas Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) o Sections 25 & 37(2): Determination of applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise 4.Assessment Against Policy NPF4 Policy 17 supports new rural housing proposals that: • Relate to a viable agricultural holding • Are designed to support succession and resilient communities Using Google Earth Pro we have indicated where the 3D image (above) was worked out from . 224
Page 225
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement • Are well-integrated into existing clusters The applicant operates an established farm enterprise and seeks to retire while maintaining continuity of operations. The proposed dwelling is critical in supporting that transition, enabling generational handover without disrupting the functioning of the farm. SLLDP2 Policy GBRA10 further supports such proposals where they are associated with agricultural need, are within or adjacent to existing clusters, and do not result in sprawl or isolated development. This application fully satisfies those requirements. 4.2 Design and Siting The proposal responds directly to NPF4 Policy 14 on creating successful places and high- quality design. The dwelling has been shaped by: • Distinctiveness and Cohesion: The proposal takes design cues from two nearby dwellings within the cluster. As shown in the attached photographs, the new home will incorporate similar window sizes, roof profiles, and stone quoins, ensuring it reads as part of a coherent and established group. 225
Page 226
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement • Accessibility and Adaptability: A single-storey layout has been chosen to suit the needs of an elderly occupant while enabling future flexibility. • Sensitive Siting: Located to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, with orientation and landscaping planned to preserve visual amenity. • Infrastructure Efficiency: The home will utilise existing access routes and services, reducing landscape disruption and environmental impact. The proposed development satisfies the six qualities of successful places as outlined in Policy 14: it is distinctive, safe and pleasant, easy to move around, welcoming, adaptable, and resource-efficient. 4.3 Landscape and Visual Impact The site lies within a Special Landscape Area (SLA) but not within a nationally designated landscape (e.g., NSA). Therefore, development is not precluded provided it is sensitively designed and located. The proposal: • Benefits from natural topographical screening, with only limited visibility from key public viewpoints; (as shown in Section 2) • Includes tree retention and new landscaping, further mitigating potential impacts; • Avoids sky-lining or ridgeline development; • This will be accompanied by biodiversity enhancement measures (see Section 4.5 below) that support broader ecological objectives. The planning authority did not undertake a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) during the previous review, whereas the applicant’s visuals clearly demonstrate that the proposal would not erode the character of the SLA. The revised location is more appropriate and better screened than alternative locations previously suggested. 4.4 Integration with Rural Cluster The development is firmly embedded within an existing rural cluster, aligning with the NPF4 definition of clustered development: “A group of buildings where new development can be accommodated without appearing intrusive or extending into open countryside.” The dwelling: • Avoids linear (ribbon) expansion; • Maintains a compact and contained form; • Shares access infrastructure; • Matches the established spatial rhythm and density of nearby housing. 226
Page 227
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement 4.5 Biodiversity Enhancement The proposal includes measures that will enhance local biodiversity, in accordance with NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) and good environmental practice: • All existing mature trees on the site will be retained, contributing to both ecological and visual value; • Any trees identified as being in poor condition will be replaced with native species; • Approximately 100 metres of native hedging will be planted along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. This will provide wildlife habitat, improve visual containment of the site, and help support pollinators and bird species. These enhancements demonstrate a clear net benefit to biodiversity, as expected under national planning policy. 5. Material Considerations In line with Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Planning Act, the following material considerations support the proposal: • The farm succession plan and the importance of housing to enable generational transfer; • Absence of local objections in the previous application; • Economic sustainability associated with continued agricultural activity; 227
Page 228
Newsteading Farm, Farmers Retirement Dwelling, Planning Statement • Site-specific health and safety constraints associated with other suggested locations (proximity to slurry tanks, steep gradients, or animal routes); • Design compatibility with existing dwellings; • Minimal visual impact, supported by physical evidence. These considerations significantly weigh in favour of approval. 6. Conclusion This proposal presents a well-considered, policy-aligned rural development that: • Supports long-term agricultural succession and viability; • Integrates seamlessly into an existing rural cluster; • Minimises landscape and environmental impacts; • Responds positively to NPF4 and SLLDP2 policy frameworks; • Addresses practical considerations regarding accessibility, health, and safety for a retiring resident. The design has taken account of local architectural styles, making it both visually and functionally appropriate. The site location, design rationale, and supporting evidence (including visual assessments) clearly demonstrate the proposal’s suitability. The applicant respectfully requests that planning permission be granted. Thomas Cochrane BSc.(Hons) HND, CPC Planning Consultant 228
Page 229
229
Page 230
New Steadings Farm Glencotho FB E X I S T I N G D R A I N G R E E N T O W E R S R O A D NORTH A Drawing redrawn AKN 03/10/2024 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 SCALE 1:1000 in metres B Drawing redrawn AKN 31/10/2024 Notes: 1. For construction puposes, do not scale off this drawing. 2. If in doubt about dimensions ask for clarification. 3. All dimensions shown on any drawing to be checked and verified on site by the contractor before any work commences. 4. All works to be carried out to The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and all relevant British Standards and Codes of Practice contained therein. 5. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant structural/civil engineers and manufacturers drawings and specifications. REVISIONS REV: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: CLIENT: TITLE: SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED: PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: PROPOSED: SITE: Planning Services UK 35 Clydesdale Street, Hamilton, ML3 0DD. Tel: 0141 266 6666 www.planning-services.co.uk PLANNING SERVICES UK by Urbanara Ltd Mr Lowry New Steading Farm, Cartland Lanark, ML11 7RB Erection of Single Storey Farmhouse Block Plan as Existing PLANNING 1:1000 @ A1 03/04/2024 AKN - 24-026 PL-LAY-01 C 230
Page 231
E X I S T I N G D R A I N S E P T I C T A N K S U D S C O N N E C T E D T O E X I S T I N G D R A I N P R O P O S E D G A T E 2 m H I G H F E N C E 1 m H I G H F E N C E 2 m H I G H F E N C E 1 m H I G H F E N C E P e r m e a b l e m o n o b l o c k p a t h w a y P e r m e a b l e D R I V E W A Y G R E E N T O W E R S R O A D 4 2 6 9 0 5 0 9 8 7 4 3 2 9 0 5 5 7 3 3 1 7 5 2 4 9 1 1 4 1 2 3 8 8 1 2 8 9 8 2 1 5 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 4 5 2 5 0 0 Glencotho E X I S T I N G G A T E NORTH A AKN 03/10/2024 B Drawing redrawn AKN 31/10/2024 Notes: 1. For construction puposes, do not scale off this drawing. 2. If in doubt about dimensions ask for clarification. 3. All dimensions shown on any drawing to be checked and verified on site by the contractor before any work commences. 4. All works to be carried out to The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and all relevant British Standards and Codes of Practice contained therein. 5. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant structural/civil engineers and manufacturers drawings and specifications. REVISIONS REV: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: CLIENT: TITLE: SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED: PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: C PROPOSED: SITE: Planning Services UK 35 Clydesdale Street, Hamilton, ML3 0DD. Tel: 0141 266 6666 www.planning-services.co.uk PLANNING SERVICES UK by Urbanara Ltd Mr Lowry New Steading Farm, Carluke Lanark, ML11 7RB Erection of Single Storey Farmhouse Block Plan as Existing PLANNING 1:1000 @ A1 03/04/2024 AKN - 24-026 PL-LAY-01 Drawing redrawn and numbered from LAY-03 to LAY-16 0 5 10 15 20 25 50 SCALE 1:500 in metres 231
Page 232
E X I S T I N G D R A I N S E P T I C T A N K S U D S C O N N E C T E D T O E X I S T I N G D R A I N B I N A R E A P R O P O S E D G A T E 2 m H I G H F E N C E 1 m H I G H F E N C E 2 m H I G H F E N C E O i l T a n k f o r C e n t r a l h e a t i n g 1 m H I G H F E N C E P e r m e a b l e m o n o b l o c k p a t h w a y P e r m e a b l e D R I V E W A Y G R E E N T O W E R S R O A D 4 2 6 9 0 5 0 9 8 7 4 3 2 9 0 5 5 7 3 3 1 7 5 2 4 9 1 1 4 1 2 3 8 8 1 2 8 9 8 Glencotho E X I S T I N G G A T E NORTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 50 SCALE 1:500 in metres Notes: 1. For construction puposes, do not scale off this drawing. 2. If in doubt about dimensions ask for clarification. 3. All dimensions shown on any drawing to be checked and verified on site by the contractor before any work commences. 4. All works to be carried out to The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and all relevant British Standards and Codes of Practice contained therein. 5. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant structural/civil engineers and manufacturers drawings and specifications. REVISIONS REV: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: CLIENT: TITLE: SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED: PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: PROPOSED: SITE: Planning Services UK 35 Clydesdale Street, Hamilton, ML3 0DD. Tel: 0141 266 6666 www.planning-services.co.uk PLANNING SERVICES UK by Urbanara Ltd Mr Lowry New Steading Farm, Carluke Lanark, ML11 7RB Erection of Single Storey Farmhouse Siteplan as Proposed PLANNING 1:500 @ A1 03/04/2024 AKN - 24-026 PL-LAY-11 C A Increased the scale showing nearby road and farm. RP 06/07/2023 B Drawing redrawn AKN 03/10/2024 C Drawing redrawn AKN 31/10/2024 232
Page 233
2 1 7 4 0 8360 7 7 7 2 15342 1 1 5 8 8 15342 8360 2 3 8 0 2848 2 3 8 0 4180 5 7 9 4 SOLAR PANELS 1000MM X 1600MM SOLAR PANELS 1000MM X 1600MM SPANISH SLATE ROOFING SPANISH SLATE ROOFING SPANISH SLATE ROOFING SPANISH SLATE ROOFING SPANISH SLATE ROOFING Chimney for AGA and Stove Chimney for Stove 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 5 SCALE 1:50 in metres Roof Plan 01Scale 1:50 @ A1 A AKN 31/10/2024 Notes: 1. For construction puposes, do not scale off this drawing. 2. If in doubt about dimensions ask for clarification. 3. All dimensions shown on any drawing to be checked and verified on site by the contractor before any work commences. 4. All works to be carried out to The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and all relevant British Standards and Codes of Practice contained therein. 5. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant structural/civil engineers and manufacturers drawings and specifications. REVISIONS REV: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: CLIENT: TITLE: SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED: PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: PROPOSED: SITE: Planning Services UK 35 Clydesdale Street, Hamilton, ML3 0DD. Tel: 0141 266 6666 www.planning-services.co.uk PLANNING SERVICES UK by Urbanara Ltd Mr Lowry New Steading Farm, Carluke Lanark, ML11 7RB Erection of Single Storey Farmhouse Roof Plan as Proposed PLANNING 1:50 @ A1 01/03/2024 BEN - 24-026 PL-LAY-013 A Drawing redrawn 233
Page 234
2 8 5 0 7 3 3 0 4 3 3 9 3 0 0 9 5 0 QUOIN STONE SPANISH SLATE ROOFING QUOIN STONE OFF-WHITE WALL WITH ROUGH CAST IN 3-8MM PEBBLEDASH OFF-WHITE WALL WITH ROUGH CAST IN 3-8MM PEBBLEDASH DOUBLE GLAZED UPVC WINDOWS IN GRAY FRAME GRAY FRAMED UPVC WINDOWS WITH TOUGHENED GLASS 2 8 5 0 7 3 3 5 1 3 5 0 9 5 0 2 2 5 0 QUOIN STONE OFF-WHITE WALL WITH ROUGH CAST IN 3-8MM PEBBLEDASH SPANISH SLATE ROOFING QUOIN STONE OFF-WHITE WALL WITH ROUGH CAST IN 3-8MM PEBBLEDASH DOUBLE GLAZED UPVC WINDOWS IN GRAY FRAME South Elevation (Proposed) 01Scale 1:50 @ A1 East Elevation (Proposed) 02Scale 1:50 @ A1 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 5 SCALE 1:50 in metres A AKN 31/10/2024 Notes: 1. For construction puposes, do not scale off this drawing. 2. If in doubt about dimensions ask for clarification. 3. All dimensions shown on any drawing to be checked and verified on site by the contractor before any work commences. 4. All works to be carried out to The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and all relevant British Standards and Codes of Practice contained therein. 5. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant structural/civil engineers and manufacturers drawings and specifications. REVISIONS REV: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: CLIENT: TITLE: SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED: PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION: PROPOSED: SITE: Planning Services UK 35 Clydesdale Street, Hamilton, ML3 0DD. Tel: 0141 266 6666 www.planning-services.co.uk PLANNING SERVICES UK by Urbanara Ltd Mr Lowry New Steading Farm, Carluke Lanark, ML11 7RB Erection of Single Storey Farmhouse South & East Elevations as Proposed PLANNING 1:50 @ A1 01/03/2024 BEN - 24-026 PL-LAY-013 A Drawing redrawn 234
Page 235
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 5g 235
Page 236
236
Page 237
Response from Planning & Regulatory Services (East Team) to Appellant’s Statement Appeal to Local Planning Review Board against refusal of Planning Permission P/25/0448 for erection of dwellinghouse with associated access and off street parking at New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark. 1.0 Response: 1.1 After considering the Appellant’s Statement I would reaffirm that the Decision to refuse on grounds of non-compliance with Local Plan policies, as set out in the Report of Handling, remains of the same conclusion. 2.1 Observations of applicants 'Notice of Review' 2.2 Statements have been submitted by the appellant. Specific responses to additional information contained in the appellants statement of case are summarised below: - a) Nowhere in NPF4 or the South Lanarkshire LDP is “succession” defined as familial succession. The introduction of such a requirement in the Delegated Report is therefore incorrect in law and inconsistent with established planning principles. 2.3 Response: The Report of Handling noted that generally succession would relate to the handing over of a farm to the next generation. There is no definition of succession provided in NPF4 and SLLDP2 does not contain policies considering retirement succession. As such the decision is based on planning judgement. 2.4 NPF4 Policy 17 supports a single dwelling for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding. The delegated reported sets out that information had been submitted to demonstrate New Steadings Farm is a viable unit. The question of whether the proposal related to retirement succession was considered and ultimately determined it did not comply. 2.5 The appellant has contested that there is no requirement for a family link. The delegated report did not set out that there required to be a familial link, rather in general that is how succession occurs. Appendix 1 & 2 includes a suite of information and advice from agencies relating to agricultural retirement and succession all of which refer to handing over to the next generation. Therefore, it was not an unreasonable to consider a family link within a retirement succession alongside other matters as part of the planning judgement. 2.6 The application site is in the ownership of Mr Lowry, the retiring party, the rest of the farm unit which is presented as the viable farm unit is owned separately by AK Hill Contracts. The lack of shared title compounds the consideration that it is unlikely the proposed retirement home would remain part of the farm in the long term and is likely at a later stage to be used by an unrelated party and fail to support the farm. b) The proposed dwelling is essential to the retirement succession process and fully complies with NPF4 Policy 17. The refusal references familial, spatial, legal and ownership links that do not 5g 237
Page 238
appear anywhere in Policy 17 or SLLDP2. Ongoing agricultural involvement confirms spatial and functional necessity. 2.7 Response: The proposal is not within or adjacent to the farm steading, situated approximately 400m away from the steading, and is in fact closer to properties Glencotho and Venlaw than New Steading Farm. The proposal does not read spatially to be part of New Steading Farm. 2.8 During the application process it was set out that Mr Lowry once in the proposed dwelling would continue to provide support in an advisory role. The Planning Statement submitted to the application stated - Mr Lowry will continue to run the farm as Farm Manager until he vacates the current farmhouse, which will occur once his new retirement dwelling is constructed. At that point, Mr Hill will appoint a new Farm Manager. Mr Lowry will then formally retire, although he will continue to assist, particularly with pedigree cattle. 2.9 The delegated report set out that it had not been demonstrated why this assistance role was essential to the business or why it requires a dwelling in proximity to the farm. There was lacking detail on this role whether it was paid, why it was essential to the existing business, how long it would continue for and or if it required daily on farm presence. 2.10 In the notice of review the appellant has raised that twenty cattle remain in Mr Lowry’s ownership and require his care, this was not raised at the time of the planning application. 2.11 Twenty cattle in themselves would not be at a scale forming a viable unit requiring a dwellinghouse. The appellant presents the case that the applicant had to sell the farm due to ill health. However, also requires a retirement home on the farm to care for twenty cattle that he has retained in his ownership. There is lacking detail on caring for these cattle presumably retained in sheds and land not in the ownership of the retiring party, where a farm manager would be present. Firstly, why would this require to be done by Mr Lowry? Secondly, why this function could not be provided by commuting and living in a dwelling in the adjacent settlement of Cartland and/or Lanark, bearing in mind there is a presence of a farm manager on site? It has not been demonstrated there is functional requirement for a retirement home to support the continuing viable farm unit. 2.12 A range of factors were taken into account in the planning judgement including lack of familial link, lack of spatial connection, that the site is not in same ownership and lack of demonstration why the retiring party required to be in proximity to the farm, yet not within it, or whether the retiring party is an essential part of the function of the ongoing business at New Steading Farm. This concluded that the proposal did not relate to retirement succession and therefore does not meet Policy 17. The information submitted in the notice of review has not altered that conclusion. c) The refusal of the application affects human rights, in that it would force the applicant to relocate to a distant settlement and disrupt his private life and home. That there is no compelling public interest to disrupt these human rights. 238
Page 239
2.13 Response: The purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest. Development plans, show that long term interest, and set out how places will change into the future, including where development should and should not happen. The proposal has been determined not be in line with planning policies. 2.14 Furthermore, the proposed dwelling is situated 880m from the edge of Cartland, which contains around 50 properties and 2km from the edge of Lanark which has a wide range of properties. There are also other dwellings within the surrounding area near the proposed site. d) It was necessary to sell the farm because waiting for a planning decision would have harmed livestock welfare, disrupted specialist breeding lines, caused severe stress, and threatened the farm’s viability. 2.15 Response: Para 1.3 of the Report of Handling refers to previous submissions. At the onset, when the first planning application was submitted, if the applicant had agreed to a suitable site location and design changes then Planning Permission may have been considered differently whilst the intention was pass on to family and retain ownership of the farm. e) The Design Justification Statement identifies eight T-shaped dwellings within 1.5 km and additional examples within the immediate cluster — demonstrating clear local precedent. Past nearby houses cannot be dismissed as “20 years old.” Established rural character is shaped by existing built form regardless of construction date. 2.16 Response: It has already been repeated within in the content of the Report of Handling and on other occasions that previous inappropriate suburban house designs in the locality do not justify continuing with inappropriate suburban designs in a countryside setting. Approving this proposal and replicating the poor examples of the past would undermine the Planning Authority’s aim to improve the quality of design in the countryside. If the applicant is set on this type of design, there are opportunities to acquire a house of similar design in nearby Cartland and Lanark. f) The delegated report contradicts itself. Paragraph 3.15 states the dwelling integrates with nearby buildings; paragraph 3.17 claims it will appear standalone. These positions cannot both be true, casting doubt upon the reliability of the assessment. 2.17 Response: This a misrepresentation. The appellant used Planning Permissions at Mousebank Road (P/20/0971 & P/21/1882) to justify his proposal on grounds that the Mousebank Road decisions were similar. Para 3.17 of the Report of Handling merely sets out the dissimilarities. As stated earlier the current site was accepted as it could form a loose visual cluster with two nearby dwellings and associated outbuildings however it does not have the same level of cohesiveness and visual integration as the Mousebank Road 239
Page 240
development. Therefore, citing it as an example to justify approval is not relevant in these circumstances. g) No objective analysis of suburbanisation is provided. The refusal makes subjective statements without any design appraisal, no character analysis, no comparison of proportion, scale, ridge height or materials. 2.18 Response: The scale, height and massing are not issues, it is the outward appearance and character of the proposed dwelling which is the cause for concern. The Report of Handling in para 3.16 specifically refers to suburban components including an L-shaped footprint, shallow roof pitch on the eastern gable, a dry dash finish and windows and integral garage door with a horizontal emphasis. 2.19 Traditional rural architecture would normally have a rectangular footprint with a flat frontage sometimes with a centrally located porch. A centrally located extension at the rear, creating a T-shape footprint would be supported. The proposed design has an L-shaped frontage with an off centre entrance. The design could have been changed to form a flat frontage, mullions could have been introduced to create a vertical emphasis to the windows and wet dash, or smooth render could be used as an elevational finish instead of dry dash. The applicant has refused to make any changes. Sometimes designs which are bespoke and innovative, creating a good example of what can be achieved by modern architecture can be justified in a rural setting. The proposed house is not innovative or visually interesting. It is a standard urban design which does not reflect rural design guidance and design qualities now required for a house in a countryside location. h) Policy 14 is satisfied on all measurable criteria. The six qualities are fully met, as demonstrated in the Planning Statement. The officer report does not identify any specific deficiency. It merely asserts non-compliance without analysis. Unsupported conclusions do not satisfy policy-based reasoning. 2.20 Response: Although the proposal adheres to some of the six qualities of successful places, distinctiveness is not one of them. By being suburban in character and appearance the proposed house does nothing to reinforce an identity suitable to a rural location. i) The authority misapplied Policy 16. It cannot be used as a standalone refusal reason when Policy 17 criteria are achieved. 2.21 Response: This point is invalid as the proposal does not comply with NPF4 Policy 17. 3.0 Conclusion 3.1 In considering the report of handling and the above response I would respectfully request that the Review Board accept the recommendation of the Report of Handling to refuse permission. 240
Page 241
List of documents: • Report of Handling P/25/0448 • Application form • Location, site and elevation plans • Appendix 1 – Farming Advice Service • Appendix 2 – Succession Alliance Planning and Regulatory Services (Team East) Community and Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council Council Offices, Floor 6, Almada Street, Hamilton ML3 0AA 241
Page 242
242
Page 243
243
Page 244
244
Page 245
245
Page 246
246
Page 247
247
Page 248
248
Page 249
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representations Submitted by Interested Parties in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 5h 249
Page 250
250
Page 251
Appellant’s Rebuttal to Planning Authority Response Planning Application Ref: P/25/0448 Proposal: Erection of a Farmer's Retirement Dwellinghouse with Access and Parking Site: New Steadings Farm, Green Towers Road, Lanark Introduction We acknowledge the officer’s continued recommendation of refusal. However, as outlined below, that recommendation is based on misinterpretation, unsupported assertions, and selective or speculative reasoning. We respectfully request that the Local Review Body consider this rebuttal and conduct an independent policy-led review of the case. 1. Policy 17 – Misapplication and Incorrect Legal Interpretation Officer Claim: “Succession generally means handover to the next generation. There is no definition in NPF4. Decision is based on planning judgement.” Appellant Response (UKPS): • NPF4 Policy 17(a)(vi) supports retirement succession of a viable farm — not generational inheritance. • Nowhere does Policy 17 require a familial or ownership link. • Officer introduces extra-policy tests (e.g., family link, shared ownership), which are legally improper and go beyond the scope of adopted policy. • Appendix references (Succession Alliance, FAS) are non-statutory guidance and do not alter the policy wording. 5h 251
Page 252
• A succession arrangement involving phased retirement, retained agricultural involvement, and transition of the farmhouse to a new manager meets the policy’s intent and wording. Conclusion: Policy 17 is met. The refusal invents non-existent requirements. 2. Site Ownership and Viability Concerns Officer Claim: “The site is in separate ownership from the farm, raising concerns about long-term integration with the holding.” UKPS Response: • Policy 17 does not require common ownership, only a functional link. • Shared title is not a legal test under NPF4. • Mr Lowry retained this plot intentionally to support succession. • The land lies at the farm entrance and is part of the farm’s operation. • If ownership linkage were vital, an occupancy condition could have been imposed — the authority never sought this. Conclusion: Ownership concerns are speculative and not policy-based. 3. Site Location and Spatial Relationship Officer Claim: “Site is 400m from the steading and closer to Glencotho and Venlaw — not part of the farm visually.” UKPS Response: • The proposed dwelling sits at the entrance to New Steadings Farm, connected by its access track. • It is visually and physically part of a coherent rural cluster (2 other dwellings and outbuildings). • Even the officer admits there is “a semblance of integration” (para 3.15 of Report of Handling). • It fits NPF4 Policy 14 and SLLDP2 GBRA1 grouping principles — not sporadic or isolated. Conclusion: The site is spatially and functionally integrated and policy-compliant. 4. Succession Role and Functional Need 252
Page 253
Officer Claim: “It is unclear why Mr Lowry’s advisory role requires proximity or a new dwelling.” UKPS Response: • Mr Lowry retains 20 pedigree cattle and continues to provide critical support to the breeding programme. • He must vacate the main farmhouse to enable the appointment of a full-time new manager. • This is not a new business, but a phased handover of roles — exactly what Policy 17 supports. • The officer's claim contradicts itself: criticising the role as too involved and not involved enough. Conclusion: There is a clear agricultural and logistical necessity for this dwelling. 5. Human Rights and Personal Circumstances Officer Claim: “The long-term public interest outweighs private inconvenience.” UKPS Response: • Mr Lowry has lived on-site for over 20 years. • Forcing relocation away from the farm disrupts private and family life, protected under Article 8 of ECHR. • There is no demonstrable overriding public interest to justify this harm. Conclusion: Human rights are a valid material consideration and support approval. 6. Design and Visual Character Officer Claim: “Design is suburban. No rural distinctiveness.” UKPS Response: • The proposed dwelling mirrors at least eight others within 1.5 km — forming a clear local precedent. • Design features (L-shape, dry dash render) are commonplace in rural Scotland. • No design assessment, character analysis, or measured critique was provided. • Design is modest, functional, and tailored to local climate and context. 253
Page 254
• The design has taken direction from the 2 nearby properties, which would be within the rural cluster. Conclusion: Design is contextually appropriate and supported by evidence. 7. Policy 14 – Six Qualities of Successful Places Officer Claim: “The house lacks distinctiveness.” UKPS Response: • Distinctiveness is demonstrated through: o Use of local materials (dry dash), o Visual fit within existing rural cluster, o Respect for scale, setting, and topography. • All six qualities of Policy 14 are fully addressed in the Planning Statement. Conclusion: Proposal is entirely aligned with Policy 14 criteria. 8. Policy 16 – Misapplied as Fallback Reason Officer Claim: “Policy 16 remains a valid reason for refusal.” UKPS Response: • Policy 17 is the specific policy for rural succession housing. • Policy 16 is a general placemaking policy and cannot override compliance with Policy 17. • Officer failed to demonstrate how the proposal failed Policy 16 beyond a general aesthetic comment. Conclusion: Policy 16 is not a valid standalone refusal reason. 9. Inconsistencies in Officer Report • Paragraph 3.15 states the dwelling integrates into the cluster. • Paragraph 3.17 states it is standalone. • These contradictions undermine confidence in the internal consistency and objectivity of the report. 254
Page 255
Final Position and Request to Review Board The Planning Officer’s recommendation is: • Overly reliant on subjective judgment; • Based on non-existent policy tests (e.g., family link, shared title); • Contradictory in its spatial and visual assessments; • Unsupported by detailed design critique or impact analysis; • Disregards material considerations, including personal circumstances and human rights. We respectfully submit that the proposal: • Fully complies with NPF4 Policy 17; • Meets the six qualities under Policy 14; • Is consistent with local precedent and rural character; • Supports a legitimate and active succession process; • Is a proportionate, functional, and justified form of rural development. We request that the Review Board set aside the recommendation of refusal and grant planning permission. 255
Page 256
256