Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 02/12/2024
South Lanarkshire Council · 2 December 2024
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 2 December 2024 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, 22 November 2024 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, 02 December 2024 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, Ross Lambie, Ian McAllan, Kenny McCreary, Davie McLachlan 1
Page 2
BUSINESS 1 Declaration of Interests 2 Minutes of Special Meeting Minutes of the special meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 24 October 2024 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 3 - 6 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 4 November 2024 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 7 - 10 Item(s) for Decision 4 Review of Case – Application P/24/0361 for Erection of Single-storey Dwelling House at Land at Mill Road, Biggar Report dated 21 November 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 11 - 14 4a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/24/0361 15 - 24 4b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/24/0361 25 - 34 4c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/24/0361 35 - 44 4d Appendix 2(c) Representations P/24/0361 45 - 48 4e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/24/0361 49 - 58 4f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/24/0361 59 - 66 4g Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/24/0361 67 - 88 4h Appendix 6 Further Representations P/24/0361 89 - 94 Urgent Business 5 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Stuart McLeod Clerk Telephone: 07385 370 117 Clerk Email: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 2
Page 3
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of special meeting held via Microsoft Teams and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 24 October 2024 Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Colin Dewar, Councillor Cal Johnston-Dempsey, Councillor Lesley McDonald, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Graham Scott, Councillor David Shearer Councillor’s Apology: Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller Attending: Community and Enterprise Resources T Finn, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources D McLardy, Legal Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body; K McLeod, Administration Assistant; S McLeod, Administration Officer; S O’Neill, Legal Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body 1 Declaration of Interests The following interests were declared:- Councillor(s) Item(s) Nature of Interest(s) Allison Application P/18/0330 for Erection of 6 Detached Dwellings and Attached Garages Together with Construction of Access Roads at Huntlybank, Ravenstruther, Lanark Discussed the application with the applicant Application P/22/0444 for Formation of New Vehicular Access Road with Associated Land Engineering Operations at Land 50 Metres Southwest of 1 Huntlybank Gardens, Huntlybank Gardens, Ravenstruther, Lanark Discussed the application with the applicant 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 23 September 2024 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The PLRB decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 2 3
Page 4
3 Review of Case – Application P/18/0330 for Erection of 6 Detached Dwellings and Attached Garages Together with Construction of Access Roads at Huntlybank, Ravenstruther, Lanark A report dated 8 October 2024 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/18/0330 by J and W Cruickshank for the erection of 6 detached dwellings and attached garages together with construction of access roads at Huntlybank, Ravenstruther, Lanark. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant’s agent on the further submission received from Planning and Regulatory Services The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. D McLardy, Legal Adviser, advised that the applicant’s agent had sought to introduce new information, namely a road safety audit, which had not been provided with the planning application or the notice of review. In terms of the relevant legislation, unless the PLRB requested further written evidence by means of written submissions or in relation to a hearing session, no new evidence could be introduced by any party. Consequently, the road safety audit had not been included in the review papers and reference to the road safety audit had been redacted from the comments received from the applicant’s agent on the further submission received from Planning and Regulatory Services. 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. There followed a discussion on the application during which the Planning Adviser responded to a member’s questions on aspects of the review. Following its review of the information, the PLRB concluded that there was no valid policy justification to support the erection of 6 detached dwellings and attached garages together with construction of access roads at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 28 March 2024. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/18/0330 by J and W Cruickshank for the erection of 6 detached dwellings and attached garages together with construction of access roads at Huntlybank, Ravenstruther, Lanark, be upheld. 4
Page 5
Councillor Allison, having declared an interest in this and the following item, withdrew from the meeting during their consideration 4 Review of Case – Application P/22/0444 for Formation of New Vehicular Access Road with Associated Land Engineering Operations at Land 50 Metres Southwest of 1 Huntlybank Gardens, Huntlybank Gardens, Ravenstruther, Lanark A report dated 8 October 2024 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/22/0444 by J and W Cruickshank for the formation of a new vehicular access road with associated land engineering operations at land 50 metres southwest of 1 Huntlybank Gardens, Huntlybank Gardens, Ravenstruther, Lanark. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant’s agent on the further submission received from Planning and Regulatory Services The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The 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 formation of a new vehicular access road with associated land engineering operations at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 28 March 2024. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/22/0444 by J and W Cruickshank for the formation of a new vehicular access road with associated land engineering operations at land 50 metres southwest of 1 Huntlybank Gardens, Huntlybank Gardens, Ravenstruther, Lanark, be upheld. 5
Page 6
5 Review of Case – Application P/24/0367 for Use of Storage and Distribution Warehouse (Class 6) as Soft Play Centre (Class 11) and Installation of Flue Relating to Ancillary Kitchen at Graham Builders Merchants Ltd, Cadzow Industrial Estate, Hamilton A report dated 8 October 2024 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/24/0367 by Gioca Leisure Limited for the use of a storage and distribution warehouse (class 6) as a soft play centre (class 11) and installation of a flue relating to an ancillary kitchen at Graham Builders Merchants Ltd, Cadzow Industrial Estate, Hamilton. The Chair referred to the applicant’s statement of appeal, which had been omitted from the papers in error and issued separately on 22 October 2024, and proposed that consideration of the review be deferred to the meeting of the PLRB on 4 November 2024, in order to ensure that all information in relation to the review was issued in accordance with the appropriate timescales. The PLRB decided: that the review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/24/0367 by Gioca Leisure Limited for the use of a storage and distribution warehouse (class 6) as a soft play centre (class 11) and installation of a flue relating to an ancillary kitchen at Graham Builders Merchants Ltd, Cadzow Industrial Estate, Hamilton be deferred to the meeting of the PLRB on 4 November 2024 to ensure that all information in relation to the review was issued in accordance with the appropriate timescales. 6 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 6
Page 7
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of meeting held via Microsoft Teams and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 4 November 2024 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 Lesley McDonald, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Graham Scott, Councillor David Shearer Attending: Community and Enterprise Resources T Finn, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources K McLeod, Administration Assistant; S McLeod, Administration Officer; S O’Neill, Legal Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body 1 Declaration of Interests No interests were declared. 2 Review of Case – Application P/24/0367 for Use of Storage and Distribution Warehouse (Class 6) as Soft Play Centre (Class 11) and Installation of Flue Relating to Ancillary Kitchen at Graham Builders Merchants Ltd, Cadzow Industrial Estate, Hamilton A report dated 8 October 2024 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/24/0367 by Gioca Leisure Limited for the use of a storage and distribution warehouse (class 6) as a soft play centre (class 11) and installation of a flue relating to an ancillary kitchen at Graham Builders Merchants Ltd, Cadzow Industrial Estate, Hamilton. At its meeting held on 24 October 2024, the PLRB had agreed to defer this review to ensure that the information in relation to the review was issued in accordance with the appropriate timescales. 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 a representation and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. 3 7
Page 8
The Legal Adviser advised as follows on a procedural matter:- the applicant’s agent had submitted a new matter, namely a revised parking layout plan legislation stated that new matters must not be raised unless the new matter could not have been raised before the determination was made or it not being raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances the applicant’s agent relied on exceptional circumstances, in that the applicant had not been made aware of the comments submitted by Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services prior to the decision being taken to refuse the application Planning and Regulatory Services had stated that the applicant had not been advised of the comments as addressing the comments would not have altered the decision the revised parking layout plan had been submitted with the notice of review and interested parties and Planning and Regulatory Services had been notified of the revised plan and provided with the opportunity to provide representation in relation to the revised plan it was a matter for the PLRB to decide if the revised plan and further representation received in relation to the revised plan should be considered when determining the review The PLRB agreed that the new matter would not be considered in relation to the review. 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, with the exception of the new matter referred to above. There followed a discussion on the application during which the Planning Adviser and the Chair responded to a member’s questions on aspects of the review. Following its review of the information, the PLRB concluded that there was no valid policy justification to support the use of a storage and distribution warehouse (class 6) as a soft play centre (class 11) and installation of a flue relating to an ancillary kitchen at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 23 May 2024. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/24/0367 by Gioca Leisure Limited for the use of a storage and distribution warehouse (class 6) as a soft play centre (class 11) and installation of a flue relating to an ancillary kitchen at Graham Builders Merchants Ltd, Cadzow Industrial Estate, Hamilton, be upheld. [Reference: Minutes of 24 October 2024 (Paragraph 5)] 3 Review of Case – Application P/24/0041 for Use of Residential Flat (Sui Generis) as Short-term Let (Sui Generis) at 20 Back O'Barns, Hamilton A report dated 22 October 2024 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/24/0041 by C Noble for use of a residential flat (sui generis) as a short-term let (sui generis) at 20 Back O'Barns, Hamilton. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- 8
Page 9
planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and a response from a consultee site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the further submission received from Planning and Regulatory Services The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested that further written submissions be sought, 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 change of use from a residential flat to a short-term let at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 24 April 2024. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/24/0041 by C Noble for use of a residential flat (sui generis) as a short-term let (sui generis) at 20 Back O'Barns, Hamilton, be upheld. 4 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 9
Page 10
10
Page 11
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 2 December 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/24/0361 for Erection of Single-storey Dwelling House at Land at Mill Road, Biggar 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to present the information currently available to allow a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, on the following application:- [purpose] 1.2. Summary Application Information Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Mr and Mrs Wyllie Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwelling house Location: Land at Mill Road, Biggar, ML12 6LY Council Area/Ward: 03 - Clydesdale East 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review [1recs] 4 11
Page 12
3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision. 3.2. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where an application for planning permission relates to a proposal that falls within the category of “local development” and has been or could have been determined under the Scheme of Delegation, the applicant is entitled to request that the determination be reviewed by the Planning Local Review Body. 4. Notice of Review – Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review 4.1. In submitting their Notice of Review, the applicant has stated their reasons for requiring a review of the determination in respect of their application. (Refer Appendix 5) 4.2. The applicant is entitled to state a preference for procedure (or combination of procedures) to be followed and has indicated that their stated preference is as follows:- Further written submissions X Site inspection Hearing session(s) Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure 4.3. However, members will be aware that it is for the Planning Local Review Body to determine how a case is reviewed. 5. Information Available to Allow Review of Application 5.1. Section 43B of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 restricts the ability of parties to introduce new material at the review stage. The focus of the review should, therefore, be on the material which was before the officer who dealt with the application under the Scheme of Delegation. 5.2. The following information is appended to this report to assist the Planning Local Review Body in its review of the decision taken by officers:- Planning Application Form (Appendix 1) Report of Handling by the Planning Officer under the Scheme of Delegation (Appendix 2(a)) Copies of consultee responses (Appendix 2(b)) Copies of representations (Appendix 2(c)) 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. 12
Page 13
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 2 further representations were received, including a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. These are attached as Appendix 6. 6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received. No comments on the further representations were received from the applicant. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 21 November 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Ambitions/Objectives Work with communities and partners to promote high quality, thriving and sustainable communities Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References None List of Background Papers Guide to the Planning Local Review Body Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Stuart McLeod, Administration Officer Ext: 4815 (Tel: 01698 454815 / 07385 370 117) E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 13
Page 14
14
Page 15
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 4a 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
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 100665647-001 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 Erection of single storey dwellinghouse 4a 17
Page 18
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: * DTA Other Mr & Mrs DTA . . Wyllie Montgomery Street Montgomery Street 9 9 01355260909 G74 4JS G74 4JS Scotland Scotland East Kilbride East Kilbride The Village The Village katie.macmillan@dta.scot katie.macmillan@dta.scot 18
Page 19
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. 885.00 Vacant land South Lanarkshire Council Land at Mill Road Biggar ML12 6LY 19
Page 20
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 Please see site plan 2 20
Page 21
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. Please see plans 1 21
Page 22
Page 6 of 8 Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * Certificates and Notices CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013 One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E. Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate A Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate A I hereby certify that – (1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application. (2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding Signed: DTA . On behalf of: Mr & Mrs . Wyllie Date: 21/03/2024 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * 22
Page 23
Page 7 of 8 Checklist – Application for Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters) 23
Page 24
Page 8 of 8 Provide copies of the following documents if applicable: A copy of an Environmental Statement. * Yes N/A A Design Statement or Design and Access Statement. * Yes N/A A Flood Risk Assessment. * Yes N/A A Drainage Impact Assessment (including proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems). * Yes N/A Drainage/SUDS layout. * Yes N/A A Transport Assessment or Travel Plan Yes N/A Contaminated Land Assessment. * Yes N/A Habitat Survey. * Yes N/A A Processing Agreement. * Yes N/A Other Statements (please specify). (Max 500 characters) Declare – For Application to Planning Authority I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application to the planning authority as described in this form. The accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information are provided as a part of this application. Declaration Name: . DTA . Declaration Date: 21/03/2024 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 21/03/2024 16:22 24
Page 25
Report of Handling Report dated 27 August 2024 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 4b 25
Page 26
26
Page 27
Reference no. P/24/0361 Delegated Report Date 27 August 2024 Planning proposal: Erection of single-storey dwellinghouse Location: Land At Mill Road Biggar ML12 6LY Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Mr And Mrs Wyllie Location: Land At Mill Road Biggar ML12 6LY 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 3 Biodiversity Policy 12 Zero waste Policy 13 Sustainable transport Policy 14 Design, quality and place Policy 15 Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods Policy 16 Quality homes South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) Policy 2 Climate change Policy 3 General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Policy SDCC3 Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy SDCC7 Low and Carbon Emissions from new Buildings Policy DM1 New Development Design 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? Yes Adverse comments from consultees? No 4b 27
Page 28
Consultations Summary of response Scottish Water Roads Development Management Team West Of Scotland Archaeology Service Sufficient water and waste water capacity to service the development No adverse comments or objections but request conditions related to the formation of the access, parking, and visibility splay. Potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits and request condition of an archaeological watching brief. Representation(s): ► 1 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 28
Page 29
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The proposed development relates to the erection of a 2-bedroom single-storey dwellinghouse off Mill Road, Biggar. The 0.05ha site sits to the west of Mill Road and behind Rowhead Farm, an existing single-storey dwelling. The site’s access would be around the side and to the front of Rowhead Farm. To the site’s south are the rear gardens of McApline Avenue and to the west is agricultural land. The site was an informal agricultural yard associated with Rowhead Farm, some of which was approved for the development of 2 houses on Mill Road (P/21/0815) which are currently under construction to the north of the site. 1.2 The site is within the defined settlement boundary of Biggar but is not allocated in the Development Plan. The site is in the north of Biggar which contains many shops and services. Within a 20-minute-walk of the site is the town centre, local shops, supermarkets, employment, education, sport and community facilities, playgrounds and open space, and bus services to Lanark, Peebles, and Edinburgh. 1.3 The proposed house would have: a 98m2 rectangular-shaped footprint; a cross-gable roof finished in grey concrete tile with a ridge height of 5.0m; grey uPVC soffit and fascia; white rendered external walls; grey uPVC rainwater goods, vertically emphasised fenestration with grey timber composite doors and windows. The proposed house would face westward and be sited approximately 5.0m and 14.5m west of the boundary and dwellinghouse respectively of Rowhead Farm. A driveway would encompass Rowhead Farm on three side, leaving Mill Road at the southeast, travelling in front of the existing house, then along its northern side, and leading to a parking area at its western side. The proposed house would have at least 230m2 of useable garden ground at its south side. A 1.8m high fence would define the east boundary with Rowhead Farm and a hedge row with standard trees along the south and west boundary. No detail of the north boundary and has been given. 1.4 The proposal was amened following validation to change the orientation of the house to face westward instead of northward and to replace the proposed new private waste water system with an existing private sewer. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Following the statutory period of neighbour notification and advertisement, a total of 1 representation has been received (1 objections, 0 support) as defined in the scheme of delegation; • Principle of Development o 2 houses already being developed on Mill Road o Further subdivision of land isn’t acceptable • Amenity o Would cause overlooking o Would cause overshadowing o Existing development on McAlpine Avenue overshadows in winter • Drainage o Septic tank and soakaway are close to, and uphill from, existing houses. The above issues will be considered in the assessment below and full copies are available on the planning portal. 29
Page 30
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 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2). Principle of Development 3.2 Policy 16 of NPF4 intends to provide quality homes and sets out that development proposals for new homes on sites not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances. Three criteria must be meet although the first, for an agreed build out time, is not proportionate to the development of a single house. The second requires consistency with the plans other policies and the third requires one of four situations to be applicable. In the case of a non-rural single house the only applicable situation could be that the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. 3.3 Policy 14 of NPF4 sets out that all development should be designed to improve the quality of an area and be consistent with the six qualities of a successful place: healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable, and adaptable. A healthy place should be designed for social connectivity and create a sense of belonging and identity within the community. A pleasant place should support attractive natural and built spaces and be designed for positive social interactions including quality of the public realm, civic spaces, and streets and ensuring a lively and inclusive experience. A distinctive place should support attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted into designs to reinforce identity and be designed to produce a sense of place including design influences, architectural styles, choice of materials and finishes, detailing, landscape design, active frontages and cultural context. 3.4 Policy 5 of the SLLDP2 also requires development to be consistent with the six qualities of placemaking and sets out that all development should take account of, and be integrated with, the local context and built form and not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. Policy DM1 of the SLLDP2 supported by the Council’s Residential Design Guide sets out that dwellings should front on to streets and public areas and that the back should provide privacy. A distinctive place should be designed to create a sense of place design. 3.5 The site has no frontage onto a street or public space as it is behind existing houses and the principal elevation of the proposed house would front an agricultural field which is outwith the settlement. Consequently, the proposed house would be hidden within the settlement and not create a sense of belonging or identity in the community consistent with a healthy place nor create a pleasant place due to this lack of interaction. The lack of active frontage would not contribute to creating an attractive built environment. As the site is located behind existing dwellings and the proposed house would not have an appropriate frontage and would not be consistent with the qualities of a successful place, it would be contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5 and DM1 of the SLLDP2. 3.6 In terms of amenity impacts, the neighbour to the east, Rowhead Farm, raised concern for overshadowing and overlooking and satellite imagery confirms that the recently developed houses on McAlpine Avenue overshadow the garden ground of Rowhead Farm in winter months. The proposed house would result in the private garden of Rowhead Farm being surround by development across the full path of the sun. Therefore, it is likely that the proposed development would worsen overshadowing, further exacerbated by the 1.8m boundary fence necessitated for privacy, while itself being subject to the same overshadowing from McAlpine Avenue. It is recognised that a bungalow limits opportunities for overlooking which can be offset by standard garden fences. However, site levels are higher than the existing houses to the east and north and the proposed house would be 30
Page 31
positioned close to these boundaries which would detract from the sense of privacy of existing rear gardens. Furthermore, Rowhead Farm would be encompassed by the proposed development due the position of the proposed house and its access which is not an acceptable situation in terms of residential amenity. 3.7 Additionally, Policy 3 of the SLLDP2 relates to all development within settlement areas. It does not specifically allocate sites for housing, although, the principle of residential development is generally acceptable if it does not affect the amenity and character of the area. However, as detailed above, the proposed house would not make a positive contribution to the character of the area due to its back-land position. Furthermore, it would detract from the privacy of existing gardens as the proposed house would be sited close to some boundaries. 3.8 It is noted that a recent nearby consent P/23/1387 is exampled in the application and does not have a street frontage. However it does not present the same characteristics as the application site. The consented house is not directly behind any residential gardens and has a frontage onto open space within the settlement. Sustainability 3.9 Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 and Policy 2 of the SLLDP2 relate to the climate crises and identify that all development should seek to minimise and mitigate the effects of climate change. Policy SDCC7 of the SLLDP2 seeks to minimise the carbon emissions from new buildings. Solar panels are proposed for the house which is a low carbon energy technology, and an electric vehicle charge point could be secured by condition if the principle of development was acceptable. Additionally, the Council has other mechanisms to promote sustainable development such as through the Building Standards Service. Therefore, the proposal is not considered contentious in terms of carbon emissions and climate change. 3.10 Policy 13 of NPF4 promotes sustainable transport and aims to facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Policy 15 of NPF4 aims to create neighbourhoods that can meet the daily needs of the population. Biggar is a large settlement where most daily needs can be achieved by sustainable travel means from the site. The application site is less than a 15-minute walk from the town centre and within a 20-minute walk of most services and facilities. Therefore, the site is a sustainable location is terms of transport which is consistent with local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods. 3.11 Policy 3 of NPF4 outlines that local developments should conserve, restore, and enhance the biodiversity value of a site. A native hedge row is proposed and if the principle of development was acceptable, full details of biodiversity enhancements could be secured. Layout, Siting, and Design 3.12 Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5 and DM1 of the SLLDP2 relate to liveable places, placemaking, and the quality of the design of a development. The proposed house in terms of scale, design, and materiality, would be sympathetic to the rural edge of an urban area. However, as set out in paragraphs 3.2 - 3.8, the principle of the development is unacceptable due to the layout and siting. Therefore, regardless of the physical appearance of the proposed house, the proposal is contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 5 and DM1 of the SLLDP2. Technical Matters 31
Page 32
3.13 Policy 12 of NPF4 requires waste-generating proposals, including residential, to prioritise waste reduction, separation at source, and convenient storage and collection. No details have been provided in this regard although there is sufficient scope within the site and further information could be requested if the principle of development was acceptable. 3.14 Policy 22 of NPF4 and Policy SDCC3 of the SLLDP2 relate to the water environment and sustainable urban drainage systems. These require that development proposals would not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or themselves be at risk, that they manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. The site is not at risk of flooding and the site is proposed to be permeable except for the proposed dwelling and some hard surfacing for access. Rainwater is proposed to be drained via a SUDS but details have not been provided. There is sufficient scope within the site for a SUDS and these details could be requested if the principle of development was acceptable. 3.15 Policies DM15 and DM16 of the SLLDP2 seek to ensure appropriate supply of water and waste water services. The application form details that connection would be made to the existing public water supply; the availability of which has been confirmed by Scottish Water. However, Scottish Water also confirmed that the public sewer is available, yet the application proposes connection to an existing private sewer. A revised submission was received following Scottish Water’s response changing from a proposed new private system to an existing private system. Policy DM16 requires the public system to be utilised where available however no justification for the use of a private system in a publicly served area, or details of the private system have been provided. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy DM16 of the SLLDP2. 3.16 Policy 5 of SLLDP2 has a term requiring the provision of suitable access and parking. The parking standard for a 2-bedroom house is 2 off-street parking spaces which are shown on the plans. The Council’s Roads Authority has responded that the proposed access and parking arrangement would be acceptable and have requested conditions related to the proper formation of these details in the interests of road safety. 4 Reason for Decision 4.1 The proposed dwellinghouse would not represent a small-scale opportunity within a settlement as it would not have street frontage and would have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the area and would be inconsistent with the principles of a successful place. Furthermore, a private sewer connection is proposed without justification in a publicly severed area. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out below. Delegating officer: Bernard Darroch Date: 28 August 2024 32
Page 33
Previous references None List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 05.04.2024 ► Advertisement in the Carluke Gazette published ► Consultations: Scottish Water 16.04.2024 Roads Development Management Team 29.04.2024 West Of Scotland Archaeology Service 09.04.2024 ► Representations: Gillian Travers Rowhead Farm, Biggar Mill Road, Biggar, ML12 6LY Dated: 26.04.2024 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact Mark Ripley Planning Officer Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 07385516141 Email: mark.ripley@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 33
Page 34
Planning Application Application number: P/24/0361 Reasons for refusal 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 - Design, quality and place of National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places. Specifically, it fails to achieve the characteristics of a healthy, pleasant, and distinctive place due to the unacceptable location of the proposed house. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 3 – General Urban Areas and Settlements of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the character of the surrounding area due to the unacceptable location of the proposed house. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it is inconsistent with six qualities of placemaking and would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residential properties due to the unacceptable location of the proposed house. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM1 – New Development Design of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it does not respect the local context, is not appropriate to the character of the site, would not improve the visual quality of the area, and would not create a strong sense of place. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM16 – Foul Drainage/Sewerage Provision of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as a private sewerage system is proposed without justification in an area that is publicly served. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status L(0-)01 Refused L(0-)02 B Refused L(0-)03 Refused L(2-)01 A Refused 34
Page 35
Consultation Responses Response dated 9 April 2024 from West of Scotland Archaeology Services Response dated 16 April 2024 from Scottish Water Response dated 29 April 2024 from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Appendix 2(b) 4c 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
From: O"Hare, Martin (NRS) To: Planning Subject: Planning Application P/24/0361 (OFFICIAL) Date: 09 April 2024 08:30:44 OFFICIAL Dear Sir or Madam, I refer to the above application for the erection of a single-storey house on land at Mill Road, Biggar, which was sent to us for comment on the 5th of April. I have downloaded details of the proposal from the Council’s online planning system, and having compared these against information contained in the Historic Environment Record, with available cartographic sources, and with previous planning casework, I would like to make the following comments. The plot of ground that is proposed for development falls within an archaeological consultation trigger, which in this instance has been defined in relation to a crop-marking identifying the presence of a circular enclosure that was visible on aerial photographs taken by Historic Scotland and the Department of Archaeology in 1998. Although the recorded position of this crop-marking lies around 80m to the south-west of the plot of ground that is the subject of the application, its presence does demonstrate the potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits and features to survive in this area. Material of this type would be disturbed or removed as a result of ground disturbance associated with construction of the proposed new houses and their associated infrastructure. Government policy as set out in Scottish Planning Policy is that planning authorities should ensure that prospective developers arrange for the archaeological issues raised by their proposals to be adequately addressed. Where the survival of significant archaeological material is uncertain and the scale of the development is reasonably limited, as in this case, the West of Scotland Archaeology Service would advise planning authorities to consider attaching an archaeological watching brief condition to any consent they may be minded to grant. This is based on current best practice and experience, and reflects the principles outlined in Planning Advice Note 2/2011. It also replicates the condition that was recommended in relation to a 2021 application for the erection of two detached houses in the garden ground immediately to the north of Rowhead Farm (planning reference P/21/0815). ‘The developer shall secure the implementation of an archaeological watching brief, to be carried out by an archaeological organisation acceptable to the Planning Authority, during all ground disturbance. The retained archaeological organisation shall be afforded access at all reasonable times and allowed to record, recover and report items of interest and finds. A method statement for the watching brief will be submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the watching brief. The name of the archaeological organisation retained by the developer shall be given to the Planning Authority and to the West of Scotland Archaeology Service in writing not less than 14 days before development commences’. This condition would be implemented by means of the applicant or developer appointing a professional archaeological contractor to prepare a method statement. This is basically a project design document which sets out in detail the scope of work that will take place on the site, and in this instance should include provision for the archaeological contractor to be present on site during the initial phases of ground disturbance associated with the proposal, including the initial removal of turf and topsoil from the footprints of the houses and any associated parking areas, access routes, services etc, to ensure that any archaeological material exposed during this process can be identified, excavated, and recorded prior to its being removed by construction activity. Regards, Martin O'Hare Martin O'Hare Historic Environment Records Officer West of Scotland Archaeology Service 231 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1RX email:Martin.O'Hare@wosas.glasgow.gov.uk OFFICIAL Please print responsibly and, if you do, recycle appropriately. Disclaimer: This email is from Glasgow City Council or one of its Arm’s Length Organisations (ALEOs). Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of the council, or ALEO, who will not necessarily be bound by its contents. If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. Please be aware that communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. We therefore strongly advise you not to email any information which, if disclosed to someone else, would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature then please write to us using the postal system. If you choose to email this information to us there can be no guarantee of privacy. Any email, including its content, may be monitored and used by the council, or ALEO, for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software is also used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to make sure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law. Glasgow City Council, or ALEOs, cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks. Protective Marking We are using protective marking software to mark all our electronic and paper information based on its content, and the level of security it needs when 4c 37
Page 38
being shared, handled and stored. You should be aware of what these marks mean for you when information is shared with you: 1.OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (plus one of four sub categories: Personal Data, Commercial, Operational, Senior Management) - this is information regarding the business of the council or of an individual which is considered to be sensitive. In some instances an email of this category may be marked as PRIVATE 2.OFFICIAL - this is information relating to the business of the council and is considered not to be particularly sensitive 3.NOT OFFICIAL – this is not information about the business of the council. For more information about the Glasgow City Council Protective Marking Policy please visit https://glasgow.gov.uk/protectivemarking For further information and to view the council’s Privacy Statement(s), please click on link below:www.glasgow.gov.uk/privacy 38
Page 39
SW Public General Tuesday, 16 April 2024 Local Planner Planning & Economic Development Community & Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council Hamilton ML3 8RE Dear Customer, Land At Mill Road, Biggar, ML12 6LY Planning Ref: P/24/0361 Our Ref: DSCAS-0107798-BJF Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwellinghouse Please quote our reference in all future correspondence Audit of Proposal Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, 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 Scottish Water has carried out a Capacity review and we can confirm the following: There is currently sufficient capacity in the Coulter Water Treatment Works to service your development. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us. Waste Water Capacity Assessment There is currently sufficient capacity for a foul only connection in the Biggar Waste Water Treatment works to service your development. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us. 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 39
Page 40
SW Public General Please Note The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works for their proposed development. Once a formal connection application is submitted to Scottish Water after full planning permission has been granted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. Asset Impact Assessment Scottish Water records indicate that there is live infrastructure in the proximity of your development area that may impact on existing Scottish Water assets. 225mm surface water sewer 63mm MDPE water main The applicant must identify any potential conflicts with Scottish Water assets and contact our Asset Impact Team via our Customer Portal for an appraisal of the proposals. The applicant should be aware that any conflict with assets identified will be subject to restrictions on proximity of construction. Please note the disclaimer at the end of this response. Written permission must be obtained before any works are started within the area of our apparatus 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 contact Scottish Water at the earliest opportunity with strong evidence to support the intended drainage plan prior to making a connection request. We will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. General notes: 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 40
Page 41
SW Public General 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 Customer Connections 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 SUDS proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed. Please find information on how to submit application to Scottish Water at our Customer Portal. Next Steps: All Proposed Developments All proposed developments require to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form to be submitted directly to Scottish Water via our Customer Portal prior to any formal Technical Application being submitted. This will allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Where it is confirmed through the PDE process that mitigation works are necessary to support a development, the cost of these works is to be met by the developer, which Scottish Water can contribute towards through Reasonable Cost Contribution regulations. Non Domestic/Commercial Property: Since the introduction of the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 in April 2008 the water industry in Scotland has opened to market competition for non-domestic customers. All Non-domestic Household customers now require a Licensed Provider to act on their behalf for new water and waste water connections. Further details can be obtained at www.scotlandontap.gov.uk Trade Effluent Discharge from Non-Domestic Property: Certain discharges from non-domestic premises may constitute a trade effluent in terms of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Trade effluent arises 41
Page 42
SW Public General from activities including; manufacturing, production and engineering; vehicle, plant and equipment washing, waste and leachate management. It covers both large and small premises, including activities such as car washing and launderettes. Activities not covered include hotels, caravan sites or restaurants. If you are in any doubt as to whether the discharge from your premises is likely to be trade effluent, please contact us on 0800 778 0778 or email TEQ@scottishwater.co.uk using the subject “Is this Trade Effluent?". Discharges that are deemed to be trade effluent need to apply separately for permission to discharge to the sewerage system. The forms and application guidance notes can be found here. Trade effluent must never be discharged into surface water drainage systems as these are solely for draining rainfall run off. For food services establishments, Scottish Water recommends a suitably sized grease trap is fitted within the food preparation areas, so the development complies with Standard 3.7 a) of the Building Standards Technical Handbook and for best management and housekeeping practices to be followed which prevent food waste, fat oil and grease from being disposed into sinks and drains. The Waste (Scotland) Regulations which require all non-rural food businesses, producing more than 5kg of food waste per week, to segregate that waste for separate collection. The regulations also ban the use of food waste disposal units that dispose of food waste to the public sewer. Further information can be found at www.resourceefficientscotland.com 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, Angela Allison Development Services Analyst PlanningConsultations@scottishwater.co.uk 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." 42
Page 43
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services – Transportation Engineering Council offices, Floor 7, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 07825583972 Email: craig.lattimer@southanarkshire.gov.uk Memo To: Planning Our ref: P/24/0361 Your ref: Mark Ripley If calling ask for: Craig Lattimer Phone: 07825583972 cc: Date: 29 April 2024 From: Stuart Laird Engineering Manager P/24/0361 - Land At Mill Road Biggar ML12 6LY I refer to the application dated 21 March 2024, received in this office on 5 April 2024. This application is for the erection of single-storey dwellinghouse to be accessed from Biggar Mill Road, Biggar which at this location is unlit and subject to a 30mph speed limit. EVCP should be provided. Access to be by means of a 6m wide dropped kerb vehicular crossing. Access should be hard surfaced, sealed and trapped to prevent water or debris being distributed onto the public road. A road opening permit will be required. Visibility splays of 2m x 43m should be provided and maintained in both directions with no objects great in height than 900mm located within this splay. 2 no parking spaces should be provided in modules of 3m x 6m. This Service would offer no objections to this application. Should Planning and Regulatory Services be minded to approve the application, we would recommend the following conditions: - • Access to be by means of a 6m wide dropped kerb vehicular crossing. Access should be hard surfaced, sealed and trapped to prevent water or debris being distributed onto the public road. A road opening permit will be required. • Visibility splays of 2m x 43m should be provided and maintained in both directions with no objects great in height than 900mm located within this splay. • 2 no parking spaces should be provided in modules of 3m x 6m. 43
Page 44
Stuart Laird Engineering Manager 44
Page 45
Representations Representation From Dated Gillian Travers 21/4/24 Gillian Travers 2/5/24 Appendix 2(c) 4d 45
Page 46
46
Page 47
4d 47
Page 48
From: To: Ripley, Mark Subject: Planning Application Ref No P/24/0361 Date: 02 May 2024 12:26:42 2 May 2024 Mark Ripley Planning Officer Planning Application Department South Lanarkshire Council From Gillian Travers Owner of Rowhead Farm, Biggar Mill Road, Biggar ML12 6LY Planning Ref No P/24/0361 Further to my objection submission of 21/4/2024, which you have acknowledged, another point has been brought to my attention. I appreciate that the date to register an objection has passed but the following item has only just been reported to me. When permission for two houses was granted in 2021 Planning Ref P/21/0815 it was specifically stated by the Planners that no building (house or bungalow) was to be built on the land to the west of Rowhead Farm (part of the area marked in red). The new owner is now trying to get building permission for a third house on this exact area. The Planning Department made this comment knowing that it would be a totally unsuitable high ground place badly affecting Rowhead Farm for all the reasons stated in my earlier objection. Please add this information to my earlier objection. 48
Page 49
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 4e 49
Page 50
50
Page 51
Photo 1 looking southwest 4e 51
Page 52
Photo 2 looking east 52
Page 53
Photo 3 looking south 53
Page 54
Photo 4 looking east 54
Page 55
Photo 5 looking north 55
Page 56
Photo 6 looking north 56
Page 57
1 2 3 4 5 6 57
Page 58
58
Page 59
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 4f 59
Page 60
60
Page 61
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email mark.ripley@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07385516141 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services DTA 9 Montgomery Street The Village East Kilbride G74 4JS Our Ref: P/24/0361 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Mark Ripley Date: 30 August 2024 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwellinghouse Site address: Land At Mill Road, Biggar, ML12 6LY, , Application no: P/24/0361 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 Mark Ripley on 07385516141 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 4f 61
Page 62
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr And Mrs Wyllie Per: DTA 9 Montgomery Street, The Village, East Kilbride, G74 4JS 9 Montgomery Street, The Village, East Kilbride, G74 4JS With reference to your application received on 21.03.2024 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of single-storey dwellinghouse Site location: Land At Mill Road, Biggar, ML12 6LY, , 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: 30th August 2024 Head of Planning and Regulatory Services This permission does not grant any consent for the development that may be required under other legislation, e.g. Building Warrant or Roads Construction Consent. South Lanarkshire Council Community and Enterprise Resources Planning and Regulatory Services Application no. P/24/0361 62
Page 63
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/24/0361 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 - Design, quality and place of National Planning Framework 4 as it is not consistent with the six qualities of successful places. Specifically, it fails to achieve the characteristics of a healthy, pleasant, and distinctive place due to the unacceptable location of the proposed house. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 3 - General Urban Areas and Settlements of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the character of the surrounding area due to the unacceptable location of the proposed house. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it is inconsistent with six qualities of placemaking and would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residential properties due to the unacceptable location of the proposed house. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM1 - New Development Design of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it does not respect the local context, is not appropriate to the character of the site, would not improve the visual quality of the area, and would not create a strong sense of place. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM16 - Foul Drainage/Sewerage Provision of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as a private sewerage system is proposed without justification in an area that is publicly served. Reason(s) for decision The proposed dwellinghouse would not represent a small-scale opportunity within a settlement as it would not have street frontage and would have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the area and would be inconsistent with the principles of a successful place. Furthermore, a private sewer connection is proposed without justification in a publicly severed area. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out below. 63
Page 64
Notes to applicant Application number: P/24/0361 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 L(2-)01 A Refused L(0-)01 Refused L(0-)02 B Refused L(0-)03 Refused 64
Page 65
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. 65
Page 66
66
Page 67
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicants Mr and Mrs Wyllie Appendix 5 4g 67
Page 68
68
Page 69
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 100665647-003 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. 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 DTA DTA . Montgomery Street 9 01355260909 G74 4JS Scotland East Kilbride The Village katie.macmillan@dta.scot 4g 69
Page 70
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 Mr & Mrs . South Lanarkshire Council Wyllie Montgomery Street 9 G74 4JS Land at Mill Road Biggar ML12 6LY Scotland East Kilbride The Village katie.macmillan@dta.scot 70
Page 71
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 unlikely 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 applicants have instructed DTA to apply for a review of the application by the Local Review Body following the refusal of Planning Permission for their proposal relative to the erection of a single storey detached dwelling. Please refer to attached Supporting Statement for full details. 71
Page 72
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 Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) 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 Appeal Supporting Statement P/24/0361 30/08/2024 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 21/03/2024 We believe that a site inspection is imperative to allow members of the committee to fully appreciate the nature of the proposal and it's location. 72
Page 73
Page 5 of 5 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: . DTA . Declaration Date: 02/10/2024 73
Page 74
74
Page 75
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA PROPOSED SINGLE-STOREY DWELLING LAND AT MILL ROAD, BIGGAR LOCAL REVIEW BODY APPEAL DOCUMENT May 2024 CLIENT: MR & MRS WYLLIE PROJECT: PROPOSED SINGLE-STOREY DWELLING LAND AT MILL ROAD, BIGGAR 75
Page 76
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA NB: LOCAL REVIEW BODY STATEMENT TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL APPLICATION DRAWINGS PROJECT Proposed Single-Storey Dwelling Planning Ref P/24/0361 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Wyllie JOB No: W73.02 REV: - 76
Page 77
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Observations Based on Area Manager’s Report 2. Reasons for Delegated Planning Refusal and Responses. 3. Statutory Consultees Responses. 4. Reason for Granting Application Based on Planning Policy 5. Conclusion 1. Observations Based on Area Manager’s Report. Firstly, after studying the Officer’s Report it is strongly believed if this application was presented before the Councillors at a full Planning Committee, the application would have been granted not only in terms of logic, but Planning Policy adopted in February 2023 re - National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) – It is worthy of note that the Chief Planner’s Letter: transitional arrangements for National Planning Framework 4 - 8th February 2023 states the following – In the event of any incompatibility between a provision of NPF4 and a provision of an LDP, whichever of them is later in date is to prevail. Provision as that is contradictory or in conflict would be likely to be considered incompatible. (SLLDP2 adopted 2021, however, NPF4 adopted 2024 is the later in date). The Planning Authority has no issues with the following policies that were highlighted in the report for application P/24/0361, therefore it is reasonable to assume they are deemed acceptable based his report on; National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policies Policy 1, Tackling the climate and nature crises. Policy 2, Climate mitigation and adaptation. Policy 3, Biodiversity. Policy 12, Zero waste. Policy 13, Sustainable transport. Policy 15, Local Living and 20-minute neighbours. South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) Policy 2, Climate change Policy SDCC3, Policy SCC7 Low and Carbon Emissions from new Buildings Policy DM 16, Foul Drainage/Sewage Provision 77
Page 78
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA 2. Reason for Delegated Planning Refusal 1. Contrary to NPF4. Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place. It is exceedingly difficult to understand the logic and reasoning of promoting Policy 14 as a reason for refusal. Adjacent to the site is a development of 36 houses at McAlpine Court which attracted a considerable number of objections to the development from individuals and the Community Council, whilst the present application has one objection. Biggar is considered to be one of the gems in South Lanarkshire, and people are fiercely proud of their community like other settlements, and rightly so. We would actively encourage members of the Appeals Committee to visit the site and make a comparison with surrounding properties and designs. The standard “get of jail card” of every application on its own merits is blown out the water, when compared to houses granted planning in the area. The design quality and place of this single house is not contrary to Policy 14, it in fact enhances the principle. The three of the six qualities highlighted as contrary to policy are 1. Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of woman safety and improving physical and mental health. This reasoning for refusing the application is simply wrong, and bears no resemblance to reality. This application site is an excellent location in a very safe environment which supports improving physical and mental health. The second reason is equally hard to grasp. It is stated the site and area are contrary to a pleasant environment, of course the site is supporting attractive natural and built space. The wider area also supports a wonderfully pleasant environment. The site accords with Policy 14 and the wider area are also a bonus. The third, and on a par with the other two strange interpretations of NPF4 is distinctive – supporting diligence of local architectural styles and natural landscape to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into design to reinforce identity. The proposed design and natural landscape are superior to the adjoining area by a considerable margin. Please take the opportunity to visit the site and you can view for yourself the validity of the comments contained in this statement. It must be stressed not only the adjacent housing scheme at McAlpine Court will benefit from this modest development of a single-family home. 78
Page 79
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA On the 9th February 2024 a full year after the adoption of NPF4 the Planning Authority granted Planning Permission to application P/23/1387 (site plan below) and every aspect of NPF4 Policy 14 was deemed acceptable by SLC’s Planners. Above is the approved site plan for application P/23/1387 The approved site above is less than 350 metres away from the application site where Policy 14 was deemed unacceptable. This situation is untenable at every level of NPF4 Policy 14. The other points of application P/23/1387 is further from the main road, double the distance and that application also generated more objections than the single objection to the application before the appeal committee. 79
Page 80
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA Above is the approved site plan for application P/22/1184 80
Page 81
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA Above is the approved site plan for application P/24/0255 (specifically Plots 8&9) The above sites are example of a similar site in the area which has been approved by SLC. The second reason for objection given is SLLDP Policy 3 General Urban Area and Settlement. Firstly, the overarching planning guidance has been superseded from Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) to NPF4. The term ‘general urban area’ does not apply to Biggar with a population under 3000 people is classified as a rural area as defined by the Scottish Government’s 6-fold Urban Rural Classification 2000. Biggar is on the edge of South Lanarkshire and as such benefit from NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes where the focus is on improved choice of homes across tenures so that identified local needs of people and communities in rural areas are met. Homes offer support to sustainable rural communities and are linked with service provision. Interestingly, the Planning Authority never introduced Policy 17 Rural homes as a reason for refusal. Equally interesting is granted Planning Application P/21/0815 which is within the settlement boundary as is the appeal application, albeit that the appeal site is slightly closer to the town centre. 81
Page 82
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA Using Policy 3 as a reason for refusal is without any foundation and should be dismissed as not credible. Reason 3 is the proposal would be contrary to SLLDP2 Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking. The Planners have stated the site is inconsistent with the six qualities of Policy 5 whilst stating otherwise. Firstly, there is no unacceptable significant adverse impact on adjacent land, merely the rounding off a site within the settlement boundary. Secondly, this architectural practice went to great lengths to protect against loss of residential amenity. Thirdly, the site meets every criterion for walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport regardless of age and gender another issue at odds with the reality of the site. The Planning Officer made no adverse comment to NPF4 Sustainable Transport which speaks volumes and contradicts any implication that the site does not comply with sustainable transport and should never have been included in this report, completely misleading. Fourthly, the site meets all climate awareness issue. It should be noted the planner never raised a concern with NPF4 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises, Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaption, Policy 12 Zero Waste and SLLDP2 Policy 2 Climate change. Fifthly, there is no risk due to previous mining, quarrying or mineral extraction. Sixthly, the site has no adverse impact on the historic environment or integrity of Natura 2000 sites. The reason for refusal was given as Policy 5 the 6 qualities of placemaking and the application can be seen to address all the issues. Reason for Refusal 4, the application is contrary to – SLLDP, DM1 - New Development Design The design takes careful regard to every aspect of Policy DM 1 , especially the diverse styles and designs which have been promoted or evolved. The siting of the property will minimise the visual impact with no overlooking or over-shadowing. Modern method of construction and designs have superseded the traditional builds in the McAlpine court area which dominates the area. The design proposed has adopted a sympathy to the surrounding visual amenity. Biggar has witnessed a dramatic change in building design and construction methods and layout, however we have adopted more modest design in the best traditions of the area. The infrastructural concerns have been resolved to a satisfactory standard by the Design Team. The last reason for refusal is DM16- Foul Drainage/Sewage Provision. There is absolutely no need for including DM 16 for two reasons. Number one, in rural areas public provision of sewage provision co-exist with private sewage provision. Should the Local Authority feel strongly enough they can condition the grant with a restrictive clause. Further, the advantage of a private system is that provision minimising the capacity on the public facility and allows additional usage by others. 82
Page 83
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA 3. Statutory Consultees Responses Scottish Water – Sufficient water and waste capacity to service the development. Roads Development Management Team – No adverse comments or objections. West of Scotland Archaeology Service – Request condition of an archaeological watching brief. 4. Reason for Granting Application Based on Planning Policy The site is within the settlement of Biggar and similar applications have been passed with special note of application P/23/1387 (granted 9th February 2024) which was a year after NPF4 was adopted and lies further from main road. The application site attached one solitary letter of objection in a climate where planting trees can attract more objections. Rather than duplicate policies supporting the application It is the intention to focus on NPF4 as the latest guidance before the adoption of SLLDP3. The present SLLDP2 Policies used for objections were comprehensively dealt with in the previous chapter. The application is consistent with NPF4 Policies – Policy 1 Sustainable Places. Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaption. Policy 3 Biodiversity Policy. 12. Policy 13 Sustainable Transport. Worthy of note the above policies were taken into consideration during the assessment period by the planners and none were highlighted as reasons for refusal for obvious reasons. Policy 14. Design, quality and place were the only policy reasons for refusal and were inconsistent with previous planning approvals very nearby, the reasons given offered no justification for refusal. Policy 14 Design, quality and place fully support the application in the proposed location. Policy 15 Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods and Policy 16 Quality homes were identified by the planners during the assessment period, and neither were offered as justification for refusal for obvious reasons. Policy 17 Rural homes, which given the environment Biggar is located is appropriate as there is a population of only 2,650 and is classified as a remoter rural area as the nearest town over 10,000 population is Carluke 35 minutes away (Lanark population - 9,100 and Peebles population - 8,200). Policy 17 encourage sustainable development within the settlement boundary as the development site is. Policy 18 Infrastructure First. The infrastructure is in place reducing carbon emissions and waste. One primary reason for a private sewage system is to reduce infrastructure works, although the opportunity is there to connect to the public system if the Planning Authority apply the appropriate condition. Policy 21 Play, recreation, and sport. The policy intent is to encourage, promote and facilitate space and opportunities for play, recreation, and sport. On the edge of one of the best public parks in South Lanarkshire for using the natural contours of the land then add the rolling Border hills including nearby Lanarkshire’s highest hill Culter Fell at 748m. The application site is wonderfully located to benefit from health and wellbeing. 83
Page 84
Land at Mill Road, Biggar | DTA Conclusion The site should be approved for strictly planning policy reasons outlined in this statement. The reasons for refusal were inconsistent with previous approvals and misinterpretation of policies. It has been stressed and requested the appeals committee should visit the site and assess this on its location within the town and the surrounding environment. Given the impacted NPF 4 has had on housing in the rural area small site like this within the settlement boundary are critical to provide much needed housing. We are confident you will reach the conclusion why this site was ever deemed for refusal by delegated means. Please visit the site without interference and reach your own conclusions, we cannot be more open and transparent. END. 84
Page 85
WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATION Bed 2 w Bed 1 w St. St. Utility E/S Kitchen Bath Lobby Living GROUND FLOOR NOTES 1. Do NOT scale from this drawing. 2. All dimensions to be confirmed by the Contractor by site measure prior to work commencing, or fabrication or ordering of any components. 3. In the case of any discrepancy, always refer to the Architect. Date By Scale Autocad Reference Drawing No Job No Rev Title Project Client Size A2 ©2024 D D E S I G N T E C H N I C A L 9 M O N T G O M E R Y S T R E E T T H E V I L L A G E E A S T K I L B R I D E G L A S G O W G 7 4 4 J S T E L 0 1 3 5 5 2 6 0 9 0 9 H E L L O D T A . S C O T COPYRIGHT OF DTA A R C H I T E C T U R E T A Mr & Mrs Wyllie Proposed Dwelling Mill Road, Biggar Proposed W73.02 L(2-)01 A Mar 24 GM AS 02m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m 1:100 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m1m 1:50 ELEMENT MATERIAL COLOUR Roof : Concrete Tiles Smooth Grey External walls : Acrylic polymer render White : Natural stone Windows / Doors Polyester powder coated composite windows Timber/Grey Gutters & RWP uPVC Grey Facias & Soffits uPVC Grey 85
Page 86
FB Museum Biggar Mill Greenhill Farmhouse ROAD ROW HEAD Mill Cottage TERRACE BIGGAR MILL 35 87 6 4 Rowhead Court Rowhead Cottage 6 33 TERRACE Path (um ) ROAD BIGGAR MILL Visibility Splay 2x43m 24 17 6 42 11 1 1822 16 10 2 8 3 115 MCALPINE AVENUE 20 WCLOUNGE STUDY St UTILITY DININ G KITCHEN LIVING Planning Approval P/21/0815 WCLOUNGE STUDY St UTILITY DININ G KITCHEN LIVING Planning Approval P/21/0815 Planning Approval P/23/1387 Mr & Mrs Wyllie Proposed Dwelling Mill Road, Biggar Location Plan W73.02 L(0-)01 Mar 24 GM 1:1250 0 50m25m25m 75m 100m 125m 1:1250 Client Project Title Rev Job No Drawing No Autocad Reference ScaleByDate NOTES 1. Do NOT scale from this drawing. 2. All dimensions to be confirmed by the Contractor by site measure prior to work commencing, or fabrication or ordering of any components. 3. In the case of any discrepancy, always refer to the Architect. Size A3 ©2024 9 M O N T G O M E R Y S T R E E T T H E V I L L A G E E A S T K I L B R I D E G L A S G O W G 7 4 4 J S T E L : 0 1 3 5 5 2 6 0 9 0 9 H E L L O @D T A . S C O T COPYRIGHT OF DTA D D E S I G N T E C H N I C A L A R C H I T E C T U R E T A 86
Page 87
87
Page 88
14427 18458 NOTES 1. Do NOT scale from this drawing. 2. All dim ensions to be confirm ed by the Contractor by site m easure prior to work com m encing, or fabrication or ordering of any com ponents. 3. In the case of any discrepancy, always refer to the Architect. Date By Scale Autocad Reference Drawing No Job No Rev Title Project Client Size A2 ©2024 DD E S I G N T E C H N I C A L 9 M O N TG O M ERY STREET THE V ILLA G E EA ST KILBRID E G LA SG O W G 74 4 JS TEL 0 1355 260 90 9 HELLO D TA .SC O T COPYRIGHT OF DTA A R C H I T E C T U R E T A Mr & Mrs W yllie Proposed Dwelling Mill Road, Biggar Proposed Levels Survey W 73.02 L(0-)03 Aug 24 GM 1:250 0 15m 25m 5m 5m 10m 20m 1:250 88
Page 89
Further Representations Further Representation From G Travers by email Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 4h 89
Page 90
90
Page 91
From: To: McLeod, Stuart Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - P/24/0361 – Land at Mill Road, Biggar Date: 29 October 2024 12:16:27 Dear Stuart, With reference to Notice of Review of Planning Application P/24/0361, I wish to register my concerns on the points they have raised on their appeal. When the planning for the 4 new houses along Mill Road were approved the applicant was specifically told by planning that no house would be allowed to be built there. This has also been told again on 30 August 2024. As stated the site and area are contrary to a pleasant environment and WILL overlook and over-shadow my property. This is of no benefit to McAlpine Avenue (Court?) whatsoever. I am in full support of the planning refusal and the reasons why. Yours sincerely, Gillian Travers Rowhead Farm Biggar Mill Road Please confirm receipt of this email. Sent from my iPad :-) 4h 91
Page 92
92
Page 93
Page 1 of 2 Date: 30 October 2024 Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Local Review Body: Planning Appeal Response Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwellinghouse Applicant: Site address: Mr And Mrs Wyllie Land at Mill Road, Biggar, ML12 6LY Application no: P/24/0361 In respect of the Statement of Case for this Notice of Review, the report of handling associated with application P/24/0361 provides a detailed assessment of all material planning considerations associated with this appeal and the Planning Service requests that this document is referred to in terms of the Notice of Review. Furthermore, in response to the Appellants submission, we would offer the following: 1. The appeal statement questions the qualities of a successful places which form the basis of some of the polices given as reasons for refusal. The principles of successful places are key considerations in both the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 and National Planning Framework 4. As justified in the report of handling, back land development does not contribute to successful placemaking. While the qualities of successful places are summarised as 6 words (healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, and sustainable), they concern many elements of place. For example, healthy includes passive surveillance and a sense of belonging and identity in the community which a back land house cannot achieve. The qualities of successful places are given in Annex D of National Planning Framework 4. 2. The appeal statement gives examples of other approved dwellinghouses. Each proposal and site must be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, the exampled sites do not present the same characteristics as the appeal site. These sites were adjacent to public open space within settlements or part of a larger housing scheme which included a small cul-de-sac. The appeal site is bound on three sides by the rear gardens of existing dwellings (one under construction), and the west boundary by an agricultural field that is out with the settlement. It has no frontage onto a road or public open space. 3. The appeal statement declares that Biggar is not a general urban area but a rural area and that the wrong policies have been considered. The development plan is 93
Page 94
Page 2 of 2 independent of the Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2020 however, it may be considered during the preparation of the development plan. Biggar is defined as a settlement within the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Therefore, Policy 3 – General Urban Areas of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 is a material consideration. Policy 17 – Rural homes of National Planning Framework 4 is not relevant within a settlement boundary. In any case, Policy 16 – Quality homes, the relevant National Planning Framework 4 housing policy within settlements was not given as a reason for refusal as the proposal primarily fails to comply with the development plan in terms of layout and siting due to its back land position. The principle of residential development is generally supported within settlements. 4. The appeal statement questioned the need to include Policy DM16 – Foul Drainage/Sewage Provision of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plans 2 and stated that private systems are advantageous in minimising constraints on the public sewer. It also promotes Policy 18 – Infrastructure first of National Planning Framework 4 in support of this position. It is a legal requirement for any building to connect to the public sewer when it is available unless there are significant technical constraints. This is reflected in the polices of the development plan. The application proposed private waste water drainage however Scottish Water confirmed the availability of a sewer in their consultation response. The applicant was given an opportunity to address this matter but failed to do so in the amended submission hence the reason for refusal. Furthermore, Policy 18 does not apply to single house developments; it concerns large scale infrastructure development. Overall, the appeal statement does not provide sufficient justification to overturn the reasons for refusal. The application was refused consent primarily as it represented ‘back land’ development, and the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage comparable to neighbouring houses. The Council has taken a consistent approach in terms of its interpretation of the development plan and its supplementary guidance on ‘back land’ development. The South Lanarkshire Council Local Review Body has dismissed several notices of review in relation to such proposals. Whilst each application/site must be determined on its individual merits, this clearly shows that the policy approach taken on application P/24/0361 is consistent with how South Lanarkshire Council has applied the development plan on other sites. Accordingly, it is therefore respectfully requested that the Review Body upholds the decision to refuse the application given the above and the assessment and conclusions section in the report of handling previously lodged. 94