Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 03/02/2025
South Lanarkshire Council · 3 February 2025
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 3 February 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA Friday, 24 January 2025 Dear Councillor Planning Local Review Body The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:- Date: Monday, 03 February 2025 Time: 10:30 Venue: Hybrid - Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf. Yours sincerely Paul Manning Chief Executive Members Richard Nelson (Chair), Gerry Convery (Depute Chair), Alex Allison, Colin Dewar, Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Cal Johnston-Dempsey, Lesley McDonald, Norman Rae, Graham Scott, David Shearer Substitutes Robert Brown, Maureen Devlin, Grant Ferguson, Alistair Fulton, Graeme Horne, Ross Lambie, Ian McAllan, Kenny McCreary, Davie McLachlan 1
Page 2
BUSINESS 1 Declaration of Interests 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 2 December 2024 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 3 - 4 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case - P/24/0720 for Change of Use of Amenity Greenspace to Form Driveway and Vehicle Access at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride Report dated 20 January 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 5 - 8 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form 9 - 16 3b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling 17 - 24 3c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses 25 - 32 3d Appendix 2(c) Representation 33 - 36 3e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan 37 - 46 3f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal 47 - 54 3g Appendix 5 Notice of Review 55 - 70 3h Appendix 6 Further Representation 71 - 74 3i Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representation 75 - 78 Urgent Business 4 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 meeting held via Confero and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 2 December 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 G Finlay, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources S Jessup, Administration Assistant; 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 Minutes of Special Meeting The minutes of the special meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 24 October 2024 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The PLRB decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 4 November 2024 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The PLRB decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 4 Review of Case – Application P/24/0361 for Erection of Single-storey Dwelling House at Land at Mill Road, Biggar A report dated 21 November 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/24/0361 by Mr and Mrs Wyllie for the erection of a single-storey dwelling house at land at Mill Road, Biggar. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and responses from consultees 2 3
Page 4
site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submissions from an interested party and Planning 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. The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested a site inspection, 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. There followed a discussion on the application during which the Planning Adviser responded to members’ 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 a single-storey dwelling house at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 30 August 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/24/0361 by Mr and Mrs Wyllie for the erection of a single-storey dwelling house at land at Mill Road, Biggar, be upheld. 5 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 4
Page 5
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 3 February 2025 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/24/0720 for Change of Use of Amenity Greenspace to Form Driveway and Vehicle Access at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride 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 permission Applicant: Mr James Nolan Proposal: Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway and vehicle access Location: 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8SD Council Area/Ward: 07 – East Kilbride Central South 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review [1recs] 3 5
Page 6
3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision. 3.2. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where an application for planning permission relates to a proposal that falls within the category of “local development” and has been or could have been determined under the Scheme of Delegation, the applicant is entitled to request that the determination be reviewed by the Planning Local Review Body. 4. Notice of Review – Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review 4.1. In submitting their Notice of Review, the applicant has stated their reasons for requiring a review of the determination in respect of their application. (Refer Appendix 5) 4.2. The applicant is entitled to state a preference for procedure (or combination of procedures) to be followed and has indicated that their stated preference is as follows:- Further written submissions Site inspection Hearing session(s) X Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure 4.3. However, members will be aware that it is for the Planning Local Review Body to determine how a case is reviewed. 5. Information Available to Allow Review of Application 5.1. Section 43B of the 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)) Copy of representation (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. 6
Page 7
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. One further representation was received, a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. This is attached as Appendix 6. 6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representation received. Comments from the applicant are contained in the submission attached as Appendix 7. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 20 January 2025 Link(s) to Council Values/Ambitions/Objectives Work with communities and partners to promote high quality, thriving and sustainable communities Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References None List of Background Papers Guide to the Planning Local Review Body Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Stuart McLeod, Administration Officer Ext: 4815 (Tel: 01698 454815 / 07385 370 117) E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 7
Page 8
8
Page 9
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 9
Page 10
10
Page 11
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 100671619-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Description of Proposal Please describe accurately the work proposed: * (Max 500 characters) Has the work already been started and/ or completed? * No Yes - Started Yes – Completed Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * The removal of an area of greenspace to allow access to a driveway. There are no trees to be removed. I would also require a dropped kerb. I am requesting this for medical reasons as my wife has osteoarthritis and she has difficulty walking. Her condition will only worsen over time. A driveway would be of great benefit to her and we would also be able to install our own charger for our electric car. Mr James Nolan 51 Quebec Drive 51 G75 8SD South Lanarkshire East Kilbride Westwood 3a 11
Page 12
Page 2 of 5 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Pre-Application Discussion Details Cont. In what format was the feedback given? * Meeting Telephone Letter Email Please provide a description of the feedback you were given and the name of the officer who provided this feedback. If a processing agreement [note 1] is currently in place or if you are currently discussing a processing agreement with the planning authority, please provide details of this. (This will help the authority to deal with this application more efficiently.) * (max 500 characters) Title: Other title: First Name: Last Name: Correspondence Reference Date (dd/mm/yyyy): Number: Note 1. A Processing agreement involves setting out the key stages involved in determining a planning application, identifying what information is required and from whom and setting timescales for the delivery of various stages of the process. 51 QUEBEC DRIVE I spoke to Mr Morton on the phone as I needed help with a couple of questions on the application form. I found him to be very helpful as he was able to provide me with the answers I needed. Mr South Lanarkshire Council Iain EAST KILBRIDE Morton GLASGOW 22/05/2024 G75 8SD 654054 262600 12
Page 13
Page 3 of 5 Trees Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? * Yes No If yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled. Access and Parking Are you proposing a new or altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If yes, please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing, altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you proposed to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. 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, cycle spaces). 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 Are you able to identify and give appropriate notice to ALL the other owners? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate B 0 0 13
Page 14
Page 4 of 5 Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 I hereby certify that (1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner [Note 4] 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; or – (1) - I have/The Applicant has served notice on every person other than myself/the applicant who, at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application was owner [Note 4] of any part of the land to which the application relates. Name: Address: Date of Service of Notice: * (2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding; or – (2) - The land or part of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding and I have/the applicant has served notice on every person other than myself/himself who, at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application was an agricultural tenant. These persons are: Name: Address: Date of Service of Notice: * Signed: Mr James Nolan On behalf of: Date: 06/06/2024 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * South Lanarkshire Council South Lanarkshire Council HQ, Almada Street, Hamilton, Scotland, ML3 0AA 06/06/2024 14
Page 15
Page 5 of 5 Checklist – Application for Householder Application Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) Have you provided a written description of the development to which it relates?. * Yes No b) Have you provided the postal address of the land to which the development relates, or if the land in question Yes No has no postal address, a description of the location of the land? * c) Have you provided the name and address of the applicant and, where an agent is acting on behalf of the Yes No applicant, the name and address of that agent.? * d) Have you provided a location plan sufficient to identify the land to which it relates showing the situation of the Yes No land in relation to the locality and in particular in relation to neighbouring land? *. This should have a north point and be drawn to an identified scale. e) Have you provided a certificate of ownership? * Yes No f) Have you provided the fee payable under the Fees Regulations? * Yes No g) Have you provided any other plans as necessary? * Yes No Continued on the next page A copy of the other plans and drawings or information necessary to describe the proposals (two must be selected). * You can attach these electronic documents later in the process. Existing and Proposed elevations. Existing and proposed floor plans. Cross sections. Site layout plan/Block plans (including access). Roof plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Additional Surveys – for example a tree survey or habitat survey may be needed. In some instances you Yes No may need to submit a survey about the structural condition of the existing house or outbuilding. A Supporting Statement – you may wish to provide additional background information or justification for your Yes No Proposal. This can be helpful and you should provide this in a single statement. This can be combined with a Design Statement if required. * You must submit a fee with your application. Your application will not be able to be validated until the appropriate fee has been Received by the planning authority. Declare – For Householder Application I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for planning permission as described in this form and the accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information. Declaration Name: Mr James Nolan Declaration Date: 06/06/2024 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
Report of Handling Report dated 1 October 2024 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 3b 17
Page 18
18
Page 19
Delegated Report of Handling 1. Site Description and Proposal 1.1 The application site relates to verged section comprised of amenity greenspace at the front of a footway and the respective terraced dwellinghouse of the applicant at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride; within a ‘Radburn’ design estate, which predominantly features front curtilages with lawns forming shared greenspaces without the inclusion of off-street parking. The front garden of no. 51 as well as that of neighbouring houses are lower in level than the adjacent road, public footway and verge with hedging directly in front of it. 1.2 The proposal relates to the change of use of approximately 30m2 of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and new vehicular access to Quebec Drive, subsuming it in association with the front residential curtilage of no. 51. It should be noted that while the formation of a hard surface within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse benefits from permitted development rights subject to meeting the limitations and requirements relating to permeable surfacing and suitably catching surface-water run-off, the verged section, which is comprised of amenity greenspace, is outwith the curtilage of the respective dwellinghouse. The proposal therefore requires full planning permission for the change of use of land. 1.3 The verged section which is proposed to be changed in use to form a vehicular access features shrub planting and is linked to adjacent hedging and planting. The ground is under the ownership of South Lanarkshire Council; and any subsequent development taking place upon it would be dependent on further correspondence with the Estates Department and prior agreement from the respective owner of the land. 2. Consultations Roads and Development Management Team: No objections subject to the imposition of conditions. Reference no: P/24/0720 Proposal: Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway and vehicular access Site Address: 51 Quebec Drive East Kilbride G75 8SD Applicant: Mr James Nolan Agent: n/a Application Type: Full Planning Permission Development Plan Compliance: No Recommendation: Refusal Representations: 0 Support 1 Object 0 Comments 3b 19
Page 20
Response: Noted. The imposition of conditions and their planning implications will be discussed further in section 3.8. Estates Department: No objections though advised that at the date of correspondence, they were not aware of any enquiries by the applicant requesting permission to carry out works within the Council site. Response: Noted. 3. Representations Following the statutory period of neighbour notification and advertisement, a total of 1 representations has been received (1 objections) as defined in the scheme of delegation; • Amenity impacts pertaining to loss of a verge and associated planting, and the loss of privacy and overlooking to a neighbouring proprietor • Drainage impacts • Road safety The above issues will be considered in the assessment below and full copies are available on the planning portal. 4. Development Plan Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National Planning Framework 4 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is Scotland’s national spatial strategy for Scotland. It sets out spatial principles, regional priorities, national developments, and national planning policy. NPF4 supports the planning and delivery of sustainable places, liveable places, and productive places. National Planning Framework 4 Policies Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2: Climate mitigation and adaption Policy 14: Design, quality and place South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) For the purposes of determining planning applications the Council assesses proposals against the policies contained within the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2). In this regard the application site and associated proposals are affected by the following policies contained in the SLLDP2:- SLLDP2 Volume 1 Policies Policy 2: Climate Change Policy 3: General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking SLLDP2 Volume 2 Policies n/a South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) Supporting Planning Guidance Development at a Dwellinghouse 20
Page 21
5. Assessment and Discussion 5.1 The main issues to be addressed in the determination of this application includes the layout, siting and design of the proposal, and an assessment of any visual and amenity impacts. The policies contained within National Planning Framework 4 and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 are the main consideration in this case. Climate Change 5.2 Greenspaces of various scales and strategic significance have an important role contributing towards improving air quality, mitigating greenhouse gases through carbon storage, supporting biodiversity and providing flood storage. Nonetheless, in this instance it is considered that the proposed loss of a verge is of a scale which would have a negligible impact in regard to these considerations. Consequently, it is considered that there are no conflicts with the aims of Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4, and Policy 2 of SLLDP2 which seek to promote developments that address the global climate emergency and nature crisis. Principle of Development 3.3 The proposal seeks consent for the change of use of a verge comprising of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and new vehicular access. The site is located within a ‘general urban area’ within the Local Development Plan 2. Policy 3 of SLLDP2 states that proposals for uses that are ancillary to residential areas will be assessed on their individual merits, with particular regard to their effect on the amenity and character of the area. Particular consideration will be given to likely impacts on the amenity of the area. This will include locally important greenspace, local services and facilities, proposed servicing, parking arrangements and access. While the general principle of the change of use of amenity greenspace to a driveway raises no concerns, the policy is qualified by the consideration that any such development should not result in any significantly adverse impacts upon the surrounding amenity. Amenity 3.4 Policy 3 of SLLDP2 is applicable for development within areas within recognised settlement boundaries, where no specific policies or proposals apply. Particular consideration will be given to likely impacts on the amenity of the area. This will include locally important greenspace, local services and facilities, proposed servicing, parking arrangements and access. Developments which would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the wider community or to the character of the surrounding area will not be permitted. Policy 5 of SLLDP2 states that development proposals are required to be well designed and integrated with the local area. Proposals should have no unacceptable significant adverse impacts on the local community and the environment. When assessing development proposals, the Council will ensure that, where appropriate; there is no unacceptable impact on the streetscape in terms of layout or amenity. Policy 14 of NPF4 relates to liveable places, it 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. Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. 3.5 The area of amenity greenspace that is proposed to form both a hard surface and vehicular access is located at the centre of Quebec Drive, which features a linear 21
Page 22
verge with various clusters of shrubs; punctuated by various parking bays, though the verge inclines and ends on either side resulting in a footway immediately fronting the adjacent houses. This section of greenspace is not useable, or classified as priority greenspace, though it comprises a significant component of the fabric and character of the streetscape. The change of use of verges and amenity greenspace to either private garden ground or driveways can sometimes be accommodated within planning terms; though in this instance it is considered that the area of land proposed to change is significant in size; forming a large area of hard surfacing that would be inconsistent within the streetscape. The loss of this greenspace would be of a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the streetscape and wider area; setting an unwelcome precedent and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 of SLLDP2 and Policy 14 of NPF4. 3.6 Further along the street of Quebec Drive, there are some examples of driveways and vehicular road accesses where previously a verge or hedge was removed. However, there are no records of these developments within the planning register, therefore they were either constructed more than 25 years ago, or without the necessary planning permission. As these examples are either historic, or do not have planning consent, they do not constitute a precedent of development or a justification for a development which would otherwise conflict with planning policy. These other examples provide varying contexts, contrasting with this proposal in relation to their local surroundings; with some constituting smaller sections of greenspace, and no immediate parking bays adjacent to them. While planning applications may not have been submitted for these, each proposed development is assessed upon its own individual merits and site context; and are not interchangeable or directly comparable to one another. Road Safety 3.7 Policy 5 of SLLDP2 requires that proposals should have no unacceptable adverse impacts on the local community and the environment. When assessing development proposals, the Council will ensure that, where appropriate, the proposed development provides suitable access and has no adverse implications for public safety. 3.8 The Roads and Development Management Team were consulted in respect to the proposal’s road safety implications. They advised that they had no objections subject to the imposition of various conditions. With the imposition of these conditions, submission of further information, and adherence to them by the proposed development; the proposal would not raise any concerns relating to road safety. It is recognised that conditions imposed on the granting of planning permission can enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission; though the imposition of conditions should be reasonable and practicable, adhering to the six tests of planning conditions. One of these tests states that conditions which are imposed should be considered reasonable to be complied with. In this instance, one of the conditions recommended for imposition is the requirement for a pedestrian visibility splay to be provided on both sides of the driveway and vehicular access. Nonetheless, this condition would relate to land outwith the ownership of the applicant and dependent on the actions of others, and therefore would be deemed unreasonable to be complied with. This is especially pertinent within the context that there is a row of parking spaces adjacent to the proposed vehicular access, which is often occupied by vehicles, with a height above the proposed visibility splay specification. Consequently, it is deemed that as a condition cannot be imposed upon the consent reasonably, the proposal would result in adverse impacts for public safety and therefore conflicts with Policy 5 of SLLDP2. 22
Page 23
Representations 3.9 A representation was received from a neighbouring proprietor expressing concerns over various issues relating to: resultant amenity impacts from the loss of a verge and hedge planting, overlooking and loss of privacy impacts, road safety considerations and drainage implications. The issues relating to the loss of a verge are discussed in sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. The resultant overlooking and loss of privacy from the formation of a hard surface and usage of the front garden as a vehicular parking space does not inform the assessment of this application; this assessment solely relates to the change of use of the verge to form a driveway and vehicular access. As noted within section 1.2, the formation of a driveway within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse benefits from permitted development rights subject to the adherence to the relevant requirements and limitations. The proposed development and its road safety implications are discussed within sections 3.7 and 3.8. In respect to drainage implications, if permission was granted; a condition could be imposed upon the consent requiring that the driveway would be so trapped and finished in hardstanding as to prevent any surface water or deleterious material from running onto or entering the public footpath or carriageway. Miscellaneous 3.10 A row of 5no. parking bays are provided in front of the public footway and adjacent to the respective verge and the front curtilage of 51 Quebec Drive. In this instance, due to the proposed change of use being contrary to the relevant policy, the applicant is advised that a possible next step is to contact the Council in respect to the formation of a disabled person’s parking bay. This is an area marked on the road to show that the space has been reserved for a disabled person. These marked areas are for blue badge holders who have a suitable car registered to someone in their householder and who need to park close to their home. 3 Recommendation and Conditions Refuse: 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 3 of South Lanarkshire’s Local Development Plan 2 as it would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the wider community and to the character of the surrounding area. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 of South Lanarkshire’s Local Development Plan 2 as it would be result in an unacceptably adverse impact upon the streetscape in terms of amenity and an adverse impact to public safety. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 as it would result in the loss of an amenity greenspace area that would be detrimental to the surrounding area. 4 Reason for Decision The proposed change of use of an existing verge with hedge planting to form a driveway and vehicular access would remove a section of land which contributes to the local character and amenity of the streetscape. This loss would adversely impact the amenity of the street and surrounding area, forming an unwelcome precedent for similar proposals, which would cumulatively form a significantly detrimental impact upon the surrounding area. It is therefore deemed that the proposal conflicts with Policies 14 of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 3 and 5 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2. 23
Page 24
Authorised by: Iain Morton Date: 1 October 2024 Background Papers Further information relating to the application can be found online: P/24/0720 | Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway | 51 Quebec Drive East Kilbride G75 8SD (southlanarkshire.gov.uk) Corporate Considerations The report raises no impacts or risks in terms of equalities or financial implications. Any implications in terms of climate change, sustainability or the environment will have been considered above in terms of the relevant national and local policies. Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Kerr Murray Tel: 07795455474 E-mail: Kerr.Murray@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 24
Page 25
Consultation Responses Response dated 29 July 2024 from Estates Department Response dated 4 September 2024 from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Appendix 2(b) 3c 25
Page 26
26
Page 27
From: To: Subject: RE: Application consultation from South Lanarkshire Council for application no. P/24/0720 Date: 29 July 2024 13:04:04 Attachments: 51 Quebec Drive East Kilbride.pdf LOCATION_PLAN-5508261.jpg Hi Gerry, Kerr, The Estates Department has no objections to this Planning Application in purely Planning terms. However I have not been able to see any correspondence by the Applicant requesting permission from the Council (Roads account) to carry out any works on the Council owned site. Gerry do you know if anything has come in for this Planning Application. Sam Sam Gebbie Property Advisor Housing & Technical Resources, Property Services (Unison Steward Estates) (Unison Health & Safety Rep) Council Headquarters, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone (01698) 455161 Fax (01698) 455102 Work Mobile (07385 533282) Mail to Sam.Gebbie@southlanarkshire.gov.uk www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk Nothing in this email is to be taken as forming part of any contract, undertaking or commitment which is binding on South Lanarkshire Council. www.NHSinform.scot/Covid-19 -----Original Message----- From: Planning <Planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 10:49 AM To: Gebbie, Sam <Sam.Gebbie@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Application consultation from South Lanarkshire Council for application no. P/24/0720 Please find attached correspondence from South Lanarkshire Council, with regards to the planning application number P/24/0720, 51 Quebec Drive East Kilbride G75 8SD If you have any queries, about the content of the attached letter, please do not hesitate to contact the Case Officer. Yours sincerely 3c 27
Page 28
Kerr Murray Planning officer Phone: 07795455474 Email: kerr.murray@southlanarkshire.gov.uk South Lanarkshire Council, Floor 6, Council Offices, Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, ML3 0AA 28
Page 29
136 to 148 124 to 134 55 Q FB Ordnance Survey Digital Data Scale 1:500 Produced by H&T Property Services (Estates) - 23 Sep 2021 Title: 51 Quebec Drive Town: East Kilbride © Crown copyright and database rights 2021 Ordnance Survey 100020730. 29
Page 30
30
Page 31
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Roads and Transportation Services – Transportation Engineering Council Offices, Floor 6, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 0303 123 1015 Email: roadsandtransportation@southlanarkshire.gov.uk To: Planning Planning Application No: P/24/0720 Case Officer: Kerr Murray From: Development Management Roads and Transportation Services Contact: John Ferguson Phone Ext: Date: 4 September 2024 Subject: OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION P/24/0720 Location: 51 Quebec Drive East Kilbride G75 8SD This application is for the change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway. This area of public amenity greenspace is within the boundary of the public road and maintained by Roads & Transportation Services. Roads and Transportation Services would offer no objection to this application subject to the conditions noted below. The applicant should be made aware that existing services, ie street lighting, gas, water and telecommunication apparatus may be located within this area of land and may have to be relocated to this Services specification, at the applicant’s expense. It should be noted that revised drawings showing the required information relating to the conditions noted below should be submitted for approval prior to works commencing on site. • That no gates or other obstructions shall be erected within the driveway or the vehicular access Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. • That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, 1no. parking spaces (3m x 6m module) shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority. The dimensions of the vehicular access should be submitted for approval by the Roads Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities and access within the site. 31
Page 32
• That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a vehicular visibility splay of 2metres by 35metres measured from the edge of the carriageway at the vehicular access is required and everything exceeding 1.05metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 1.05metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines. Reason: In the interests of public safety. • That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a pedestrian visibility splay of 2.4metres by 2.4metres measured from the heel kerb of the footpath shall be provided on both sides of the driveway and vehicular access and everything exceeding 1.05metres in height above this height shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 1.05metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines. Reason: In the interests of public safety. • That before the driveway is completed or brought into use, the surface of the first 2m of driveway shall be so trapped and finished in hardstanding as to prevent any surface water or deleterious material from running onto or entering the footpath. The whole of the vehicular access shall be surfaced, trapped and finished in hardstanding as to prevent any surface water or deleterious material from running onto or entering the public footpath or carriageway. The construction details for the vehicular access must be submitted and approved by the Roads Authority. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and to prevent deleterious material entering the road. • That the driveway and vehicular access should not have a gradient in excess of 1:10. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. 32
Page 33
Representation Representation From Dated David Lindsay 23/07/24 Appendix 2(c) 3d 33
Page 34
34
Page 35
From: To: Planning Subject: P/24/0720. 51 Quebec Drive G758SD Date: 23 July 2024 12:48:54 FAO Murray Kerr Regarding the application P/24/0720 I received your letter dated 8 July 2024. I make the following comments. There is very limited street parking space available. This is evident after working hours. Road safety is an issue. I have had 2 incidents in last 2 years of my car being struck by drivers having to stop and reverse to allow cars to go past. Dropping the kerb will see at least one probably 2 street parking spaces being lost. There is however a 5 space parking bay where one space could be allocated as a disabled bay. An alternative would be to add one additional space to the parking space allowing for a disabled bay to be created. This would however see the loss of greenery. The plans do not make it particularly clear where the proposed dropped kerb and the parking area will be at the address. I would like to be better informed as to where the tenant at 51 plans to locate his car. Would all his garden be dug out and monoblocked or tarmac laid. The latter option would have an impact on the drainage to already soft ground in my garden. I would like my loss of privacy,/overlooking a parked car (possibly more than 1 as the potential is there for more) to be considered. Kind regards David Lindsay 53 Quebec Drive G75 8SD 3d 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3e 37
Page 38
38
Page 39
Photo 1 looking South-east 3e 39
Page 40
Photo 2 looking south-west 40
Page 41
Photo 3 looking south-west 41
Page 42
Photo 4 looking east 42
Page 43
43
Page 44
Photo 6 looking west 44
Page 45
45
Page 46
46
Page 47
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3f 47
Page 48
48
Page 49
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email kerr.murray@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07795455474 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Mr James Nolan 51 Quebec Drive East Kilbride G75 8SD Our Ref: P/24/0720 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Kerr Murray Date: 7 October 2024 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway and vehicle access Site address: 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8SD, Application no: P/24/0720 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 Kerr Murray on 07795455474 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 3f 49
Page 50
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr James Nolan Per: 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8SD, With reference to your application received on 07.06.2024 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway and vehicle access Site location: 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8SD, 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: 7th October 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/24/0720 50
Page 51
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/24/0720 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 3 of South Lanarkshire's Local Development Plan 2 as it would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the wider community and to the character of the surrounding area. 02. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 of South Lanarkshire's Local Development Plan 2 as it would be result in an unacceptably adverse impact upon the streetscape in terms of amenity and an adverse impact to public safety. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 as it would result in the loss of an amenity greenspace area that would be detrimental to the surrounding area. Reason(s) for decision The proposed change of use of an existing verge with hedge planting to form a driveway and vehicular access would remove a section of land which contributes to the local character and amenity of the streetscape. This loss would adversely impact the amenity of the street and surrounding area, forming an unwelcome precedent for similar proposals, which would cumulatively form a significantly detrimental impact upon the surrounding area. It is therefore deemed that the proposal conflicts with Policies 14 of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 3 and 5 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2. 51
Page 52
Important notes Notes to applicant Application number: P/24/0720 Important The following notes do not form a statutory part of this decision notice. However, it is recommended that you study them closely as they contain other relevant information. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status Location Plan Refused Before Alterations - Aerial View Refused After Alterations - Aerial View Refused 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 52
Page 53
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. 53
Page 54
54
Page 55
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant James Nolan Appendix 5 3g 55
Page 56
56
Page 57
Page 1 of 4 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100671619-004 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Mr James Nolan 51 Quebec Drive 51 G75 8SD South Lanarkshire East Ki bride Westwood 3g 57
Page 58
Page 2 of 4 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. 51 QUEBEC DRIVE Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway and vehicle access I am requesting permission to obtain a driveway at 51 Quebec Drive. There is an area of greenspace that would need to be removed to allow access to the driveway. I have been advised that I will require a Road Opening Permit and a Kerb Lowering Permit South Lanarkshire Council EAST KILBRIDE GLASGOW G75 8SD 654054 262600 58
Page 59
Page 3 of 4 What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unl kely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * See attached file (Appeal Letter.doc). Appeal Letter.doc Block Plan.jpg Site Plan.jpg P/24/0720 01/10/2024 07/06/2024 59
Page 60
Page 4 of 4 Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr James Nolan Declaration Date: 02/11/2024 60
Page 61
Dear Sir or Madam I applied on disability reasons for planning permission (Ref: P/24/0720) to obtain an access road to a driveway at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8SD. My wife has osteoarthritis and relies on a walking stick or sometimes a walking frame. Over time, her condition is very likely to worsen. I received a refusal of permission on 1/10/24 and I intend to appeal this. I have looked through the refusal and found a number of issues that I am not happy with. I received an email from Mr Kerr Murray (Planning Officer) on 8/7/24 with a PDF titled ufm54_Valid_Letter.pdf. The letter stated “The Council has a statutory period of 2 to 4 months to make a decision on your application, depending on the scale of development. It therefore has until 31 August 2024 to determine your application”. This date passed with no contact from the Planning Department. On 3/9/24, I received another email from Mr Murray apologising for the delay, stating that the delay was due to waiting on a response from the Roads and Development Management Team, though he hoped to receive a response from them soon. I did not receive a response until 1/10/24, more than 4 weeks after 31/8/24. The decision was a refusal. I did note that the PDF informed me that if I did not receive a response before 31/8/24, I would have the option to appeal to the Scottish Ministers under section 47 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or through a review by the Planning Local Review Body under section 43A(8) of the Act. The refusal email stated “This application has now been determined with a recommendation for refusal, and you should receive a decision notice with this information shortly. The report of handling will be available to read soon and provide more detail about the justifications for refusal. I appreciate that you may disagree with this assessment, and if so; you are able to exhaust the planning system is search of a positive outcome through the appeal process”. I waited until 5/10/24 then felt the need to contact Mr Iain Morton (Planning Team Leader, West) and ask him to oversee and expedite the process of sending the refusal reasons. I received the documents on 7/10/24. Overall, I am unhappy that the Planning Department failed to respond within the agreed timescale. It might have been acceptable if I was informed that there would be a delay before the time expired. The following relates to the refusal notice. Section 1 – Site Description and Proposal. 1.3: “The verged section which is proposed to be changed in use to form a vehicular access features shrub planting and is linked to adjacent hedging and planting. The ground is under the ownership of South Lanarkshire Council; and any subsequent development taking place upon it would be dependent on further correspondence with the Estates Department and prior agreement from the respective owner of the land”. 61
Page 62
It appears from this quote that the Estates Department needs to be contacted in order to undertake subsequent development. However under Section 2 – Consultations, it would appear that Estates Department had already been contacted by the Planning Department and had no objections. Section 2 – Consultations. The Roads and Development Management Team have no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. In section 3.8, it states “With the imposition of these conditions, submission of further information, and adherence to them by the proposed development; the proposal would not raise any concerns relating to road safety”. It appears that they have no issues in regard to road safety. An issue was raised regarding “visibility splay”. This is in regard to driving over the access road and approaching the footpath on entering the driveway. While this could be considered to be an issue, it could easily be resolved by simply leaning forward to increase my field of view, similar to how a person would drive out of a parking bay in a busy shopping centre to avoid the risk of pedestrians and passing cars. This would only affect entering the driveway, as when exiting the driveway, I would have a full field of view concerning the footpath. If this is still an issue, there is a very simple way to remedy this. I would accept a stipulation that the access road be moved approximately 4 feet away from the parking bay. This would still allow direct access to a driveway while giving me a full field of view to the sides on entering the driveway. Perhaps the Planning Department could suggest the required distance from the parking bay, if 4 feet is not enough. In addition, moving the access road away from the parking bay would require less greenspace to be removed as the greenspace narrows in that direction. This idea should still fall within the marked red area on the block and site plans as the website that I used to make those plans uses a grid system, meaning the red area is slightly wider than required. This would only be a minor alteration and hopefully would not require a whole new application. On further thought, moving the road 4 feet away from the parking bay would be the ideal placement for the access road. The Estates Department have no objections, though advised that at the date of correspondence, they were not aware of any enquiries by the applicant requesting permission to carry out works within the Council site. It is unfortunate that I did not contact the Estates Department regarding my application, however I made every attempt possible to find out who owned the land. My wife phoned SLC and was informed the Parks Department owned the land. At a later date, we were informed that SLC owned the land. I then emailed Mr Morton on 20/5/24 to ask who exactly owned the land. Mr Morton replied, asking to speak to me on the phone. He advised that I should put SLC on the form. As I said, I made every attempt possible to identify the land owners and can only offer my apologies to the Estate Department for not being able to receive the correct answers. That being said, they had no objections to the removal of the shrub planting. Section 3 – Representations. “Following the statutory period of neighbour notification and advertisement, a total of 1 representations has been received (1 objections) as defined in the scheme of delegation; 62
Page 63
• Amenity impacts pertaining to loss of a verge and associated planting, and the loss of privacy and overlooking to a neighbouring proprietor • Drainage impacts • Road safety” “Amenity impacts pertaining to loss of a verge and associated planting, and the loss of privacy and overlooking to a neighbouring proprietor” I was surprised to see a concern of “loss of privacy and overlooking to a neighbouring proprietor”. As the planting is slightly offset from my living room window, I can only assume that a neighbour in the flats on the opposite side of the road, made this complaint. A quick visit to Google Street View would confirm that the loss of privacy claim is simply not true. If the street view is placed directly in front of my property, you can easily see that the planting is offset from my living room window, and placed more in front of the view from my front door. In addition to this, you can also note that my living room window overlooks the planting. In the winter months, the planting also sheds it’s leaves, further reducing its size. The view on Google Street View will also confirm that I have 2 upstairs bedrooms, that undoubtedly overlook the planting. To prove this point, I am fully willing to invite a planning officer to my home to see the view from all of my front facing windows to confirm that I can already see every window across the road that the planting supposedly prevents me from doing. One last point to make is that if you turn the Street View camera around to face the flats, you will see that the flats have planting directly outside them, much higher that the low planting outside my own home. This planting would obviously provide far better privacy to the resident who complained. If anyone has a complaint to make about privacy, it would be myself, as we have the flats opposite us on an elevated position, which look down on our living room windows and our upstairs bedroom windows. It should also be noted that the “loss of a verge” is in fact only a partial loss of verge as plenty of greenspace would remain. “Drainage impacts” The drainage impact was also another surprising point for the resident to raise, as I assume they live on the opposite side of the road and would not be affected by this. As I was not asking for a full removal of greenspace but rather a partial removal, there would be remaining greenspace left to deal with any drainage issues. Any further drainage would likely flow to either the road, where drains exist, or my driveway which would be permeable mono-blocks. It would be absolutely preposterous to suggest that a small addition of tarmac to the street would cause flooding. If this was the case, I would suggest the access road be made with permeable mono-blocks which would also match the nearby parking bays. “Road Safety” As stated above, the Roads and Development Management Team have no issues with this point. I am not aware of how many neighbours received letters regarding my proposal, but it would seem that all, except one, have no objections to my proposal. These are the people who would be directly affected by the “loss of amenity greenspace”. Surely the opinion of one person should not outweigh the opinions of all those who did not object. For the reasons stated above, I find this person’s objections to be without merit. 63
Page 64
Section 5 – Assessment and Discussion. 5.1: “Greenspaces of various scales and strategic significance have an important role contributing towards improving air quality, mitigating greenhouse gases through carbon storage, supporting biodiversity and providing flood storage. Nonetheless, in this instance it is considered that the proposed loss of a verge is of a scale which would have a negligible impact in regard to these considerations. Consequently, it is considered that there are no conflicts with the aims of Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4, and Policy 2 of SLLDP2 which seek to promote developments that address the global climate emergency and nature crisis”. It appears that Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4, and Policy 2 of SLLDP2 do not have any negative impact on my proposals. 5.2: “The proposal seeks consent for the change of use of a verge comprising of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and new vehicular access. The site is located within a ‘general urban area’ within the Local Development Plan 2. Policy 3 of SLLDP2 states that proposals for uses that are ancillary to residential areas will be assessed on their individual merits, with particular regard to their effect on the amenity and character of the area. Particular consideration will be given to likely impacts on the amenity of the area. This will include locally important greenspace, local services and facilities, proposed servicing, parking arrangements and access. While the general principle of the change of use of amenity greenspace to a driveway raises no concerns, the policy is qualified by the consideration that any such development should not result in any significantly adverse impacts upon the surrounding amenity”. According to section 5.2, “the general principle of the change of use of amenity greenspace to a driveway raises no concerns”. Considering that I live on a street that is approximately just under half a mile long, I hardly think that the removal of a small area of grass would bring the character of the whole street down or have a significantly adverse impact. It should also be noted that there are approximately 30 driveways in my street, some of them within the last year. I would argue that the character of the street would not be affected by 1 more driveway. This vicinity is not a conservation area. According to the Equality Act 2010, “Reasonable adjustments can be changes to policies, practices or terms of your agreement. They can also mean providing extra equipment or support – the law calls this auxiliary aids”. If the changes have to be made, the law calls this the ‘duty to make reasonable adjustments’. It’s covered in sections 20, 21 and 36 and Schedules 4 and 5 of the Equality Act 2010. I have been informed of the following: The landlord, property manager or controller might have to make adjustments for you if you’re at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who don’t have a disability because of: • a rule, practice or way of doing things – the law calls this a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ • not having extra equipment, aids or services – the law calls this an ‘auxiliary aid’ These requirements are called the first and third requirements of the reasonable adjustment duty and are covered in sections 20(3) and 20(5) of the Equality Act 2010. I believe the Equality Act 2010 is capable of superseding Policy 3 of SLLDP2, as a disabled person should be given more consideration than a patch of grass. 64
Page 65
3.5: “The area of amenity greenspace that is proposed to form both a hard surface and vehicular access is located at the centre of Quebec Drive, which features a linear verge with various clusters of shrubs; punctuated by various parking bays, though the verge inclines and ends on either side resulting in a footway immediately fronting the adjacent houses. This section of greenspace is not useable, or classified as priority greenspace, though it comprises a significant component of the fabric and character of the streetscape. The change of use of verges and amenity greenspace to either private garden ground or driveways can sometimes be accommodated within planning terms; though in this instance it is considered that the area of land proposed to change is significant in size; forming a large area of hard surfacing that would be inconsistent within the streetscape. The loss of this greenspace would be of a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the streetscape and wider area; setting an unwelcome precedent and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 of SLLDP2 and Policy 14 of NPF4”. I noted that the greenspace is “not useable”, or classified as priority greenspace. Instead of the area being unusable, why not give it purpose and grant my application to use that space to assist a disabled member of the community. In regards to the area being significant in size, I have found many examples in the SLC area that contradict this statement. The length of my access road would be 8 metres. The following access roads can be confirmed by using the measurement tool on Bing Maps, or I can email pictures of the examples. 2 Baillie Drive, EK (11 metres, crosses 2 footpaths, adjacent to 2 parking bays) 4 Baillie Drive, EK (7 metres, crosses 2 footpaths, adjacent to a parking bay) 15 Corsock Avenue, Hamilton (14 metres) 17 Corsock Avenue, Hamilton (14 metres) 44 Corsock Avenue, Hamilton (7 metres) 50 Corsock Avenue, Hamilton (8 metres) 52 Corsock Avenue, Hamilton (7 metres) 41 Dalrymple Drive, EK (8 metres) 57 Dalrymple Drive, EK (8 metres) 1 Dalton Hill, Hamilton (15 metres) 3 Dalton Hill, Hamilton (14 metres) 32 Dalton Hill, Hamilton (8 metres) 34 Dalton Hill, Hamilton (9 metres) 36 Dalton Hill, Hamilton (8 metres) 47 Lindsay Road, EK (12 metres) 21 Mill Road, Hamilton (17 metres) 2 Murchison Drive, EK (6 metres 49 Whitemoss Road, EK (19 metres) All of the above examples, are access roads that are on amenity curtilages like my own proposal. 5 of them are equal to my own proposal while 9 exceed it, some by more than double. I would assume that at least 1 of these examples has received planning permission, setting a precedent. I would also assume that most of these examples are for aesthetical reasons as opposed to disability reasons. There are 2 examples in Quebec Drive (39 and 85) that required the removal of amenity greenspace. If my application is refused due to the removal of amenity greenspace, then these 2 locations would need to have the hard surface returned to greenspace as those areas belong to SLC. Failure to do so, could be construed as acceptance. It could be perceived to be discriminatory to leave those examples as they are while denying my application to do the same. 65
Page 66
3.10: “A row of 5no. parking bays are provided in front of the public footway and adjacent to the respective verge and the front curtilage of 51 Quebec Drive. In this instance, due to the proposed change of use being contrary to the relevant policy, the applicant is advised that a possible next step is to contact the Council in respect to the formation of a disabled person’s parking bay. This is an area marked on the road to show that the space has been reserved for a disabled person. These marked areas are for blue badge holders who have a suitable car registered to someone in their householder and who need to park close to their home”. My wife is eligible for a blue badge and has submitted an application, which has been approved. A disabled bay would be our absolute last resort as they have no legal standing and the bay would not be exclusively for our own use. It would also most likely be placed on the road which is 20 metres from our front door. My wife is entitled to the enhanced element of Adult Disability Payment due to being able to only walk short distances. A quick trip to our local supermarket would reveal that a large number of people have zero consideration for the disabled and park in their bays without blue badges. When confronted, these people often become abusive as I have witnessed on many occasions. This is not something I wish to experience at my own home. I would point out that the bay would have to be placed on the road as close to our property as possible. This would be on the road directly opposite our house which is exactly where my application is based. If a disabled bay was placed here, SLC would have a Duty of Care under the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments. As the greenspace can become muddy and slippery in the wet weather, it would be unreasonable to expect her to walk on this area and risk falling, as she is unsteady on her feet. An access path would have to be created across the greenspace with the removal of the planting. This would be very similar to my current application. As an electric vehicle owner, I would also be able to purchase my own home charger if my proposal is accepted. SLC and the Scottish Government are trying to achieve their green policies by promoting electric vehicle use. I would have to consider going back to a petrol or diesel vehicle if I can’t have access to a home charger as it is inconvenient and expensive to charge elsewhere. To summarise my appeal • The Roads and Development Management Team have no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. • The Estates Department have no objections. • An overwhelming majority of my neighbours did not object to the proposal. • The single objectors arguments would seem to be spurious, as can be ascertained by the reasons above. • This is not a conservation area. • I have provided a solution to the “visibility splay” problem (move the access road 4 feet away from the parking bay). • If I had access to a home charger, it would help promote the green policies. 66
Page 67
• The Planning Department failed to reply within the allotted timescale. • The Planning Department failed to inform me of the Estates Department, when I requested information as to who owned the land. • Finally, I would ask the Planning Department, what is of more importance. A small patch of, in their own words “unusable” greenspace on a road approximately half a mile long, or a disabled person’s quality of life? Yours sincerely, James Nolan 51 Quebec Drive Westwood East Kilbride G75 8SD 67
Page 68
68
Page 69
69
Page 70
70
Page 71
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 3h 71
Page 72
72
Page 73
Notice of Review - Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No. P/24/0720. Proposal - Change of use of amenity greenspace to form driveway and vehicle access Appellant: Mr James Nolan In respect of the Statement of Case for this Notice of Review, the Report of Handling associated with application P/24/0720 provides a detailed assessment of all material planning considerations associated with this appeal and the Planning Service requests these documents are referred to in terms of the Notice of Review. Specific responses to additional information contained in the appellants Statement of Case are listed below: 1. In response to the statement in the Appellants Statement of Case that determination of the application passed the statutory expiry date. While it is noted that the determination date of the application was delayed past the statutory expiry date; correspondence was sent apologising for this, and the application was later determined on the 26th of September 2024. For the applicant to appeal on the basis of non-determination to the Planning Local Review Body under section 43A(8) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the appeal would have had to have been submitted prior to the determination. In this instance, the notice of review is based upon the outcome of the assessment, rather than its delay. 2. In response to the statement in the Appellants Statement of Case about consultations responses from both the Roads and Development Management Team and the Estates Department. As noted within the report of handling, The Roads and Development Management Team were consulted in respect to the proposal’s road safety implications. They advised that they had no objections subject to the imposition of various conditions. With the imposition of these conditions, submission of further information, and adherence to them by the proposed development; they deemed that the proposal would not raise any concerns relating to road safety. It is recognised that conditions imposed on the granting of planning permission can enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission; though the imposition of conditions should be reasonable and practicable, adhering to the six tests of planning conditions. One of these tests states that conditions which are imposed should be considered reasonable to be complied with. In this instance, one of the conditions recommended for imposition is the requirement for a pedestrian visibility splay to be provided on both sides of the driveway and vehicular access. Nonetheless, this condition would relate to land outwith the ownership of the applicant and dependent on the actions of others, and therefore would 3h 73
Page 74
be deemed unreasonable to be complied with. This is especially pertinent within the context that there is a row of parking spaces adjacent to the proposed vehicular access, which is often occupied by vehicles, with a height above the proposed visibility splay specification. Within this context, it was deemed that as a condition cannot be imposed upon the consent reasonably, the proposal would result in adverse impacts for public safety and therefore conflicts with planning policy. In respect to the consultation response of the Estates Department, they provided no objections to the principle of the change of use of the section of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and vehicle access; though this does not discount land ownership and relevant legal obligations any applicant should adhere to regarding development. Consequently, the absence of an objection from the Estates Department does not indicate that further correspondence and prior agreement with the respective owner of the land should not take place. 3. In response to the statement in the Appellants Statement of Case querying representations and their content pertaining to amenity impacts, drainage impacts and road safety. Each planning application can receive written representations from third parties, which can either relate to objections, comments or letters of support. In terms of procedure, these are noted and summarised within the report of handling, and if necessary, addressed within the assessment. It should be noted that not all objection reasons were deemed to be applicable in this instance; for example, the references to loss of privacy or drainage impacts; which were not cited as a reason for refusal. 4. In response to the statement in the Appellants Statement of Case discussing the assessment, relevant policy considerations and legislation. It should be noted that legislation such as the Equality 2010 Act does not supersede the relevant planning policy. Each planning application assessment is informed by the local plan policy framework, which in South Lanarkshire is comprised of both National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2. While accessibility can be considered during the assessment of planning applications, other relevant planning matters such as amenity and road safety may also be applicable during the assessment. 5. In response to the statement in the Appellants Statement of Case noting similar examples of verges and amenity greenspace that have been utilized to form driveways and vehicular accesses. It should be noted that each planning application is assessed upon its own individual merits and unique context; so other examples may not indicate a close similarity beyond general principles. 18. examples were provided in which, the applicant argued, exhibited a similar development; though in each case, no associated planning application is recorded as having been submitted. If unauthorised development has indeed taken place, this should not be taken as a precedence of development. 74
Page 75
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representation Submitted by Planning and Regulatory Services in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 3i 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
From: To: Subject: Date: McLeod, Stuart Re: Planning Local Review Body - P/24/0720 – 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride 23 December 2024 09:41:51 Dear Mr McLeod, I sent an email last night, but this is an amended copy. I accidentally quoted the word "unusable" as "useless". Below is the amended version. I have read the PDF you recently sent me and would like to raise a few points. In section 2, the visibility splay is mentioned again. I did offer to accept a condition of moving the access road approximately 4 feet (or a recommended distance from the Planning Department) away from the adjacent parking bay to resolve this issue. It appears that they have not acknowledged my offer of a solution. Using the “Public Access for Planning and Building Standards” website, I have found an example of a driveway that emerges between 2 parking bays. This example, complete with a car parked on both sides of the driveway, can be seen on Google Street View. The example is at 19 Sydney Place, East Kilbride (Ref: P/19/0276) and has been approved by the Planning Department. In this example, an area of public greenspace measuring 14 metres by 3 metres was changed to a driveway including the removal of a large tree. The greenspace area is also larger than my own proposal. Another example of an approved application that removed an area of greenspace far exceeding my own proposal is at 19 Saskatoon Place, East Kilbride (Ref: EK/05/0569). In section 4, it is stated that the Equality Act 2010 does not supersede the relevant planning policy. While it may not supersede it legally, I would argue that it will always supersede it morally. I have made it clear from the beginning of my application that I am requesting access to a driveway due to my wife’s disability. She cannot walk very far to the point that she has to rely on using a taxi to take our son to nursery which is only 0.4 miles away from our home. Our car is her lifeline to moving around and we often can’t get parked near our home. A driveway would be a massive benefit to her now, and more so in the future as her condition worsens. In section 5, it is stated that the 18 similar examples have no recorded planning applications. It is disheartening to learn that if you try to follow the correct procedures, you are declined, but those who do so without following the rules are simply overlooked. I did however decide to use the “Public Access for Planning and Building Standards” website in search of a similar example. The planning officer assigned to my case (Mr Kerr Murray) informed me that there were no examples of a curtilage being changed to allow access to a driveway, and if my proposal were to be accepted, it would set an unwelcome precedent. I wouldn’t call granting a disabled person adequate access to their mode of transport “unwelcome” but I have indeed found an approved example of a very similar curtilage being changed to an access road. The example is at 59 Dalrymple Drive, East Kilbride (Ref: EK/06/0651). This example crosses 2 footpaths whereas my own proposal only crosses 1 footpath. It appears that I would not be setting an “unwelcome” precedent as this very similar example has been approved in the past. While I listed 18 examples, there are many more examples that I did not mention. If I did indeed set a precedent, there would not be many similar proposals as most of the areas with curtilages have already been 3i 77
Page 78
changed to access roads. The planning department also states “It should be noted that each planning application is assessed upon its own individual merits and unique context”. In my own case, this proposal is based on disability reasons and therefore anyone using my proposal as an example could be refused, if it is not for disability reasons. I would also think it is difficult to set a precedent if each case is indeed based on its own merits. Regardless, the similar example mentioned above has already set the precedent. With the visibility splay issue resolved due to my suggestion, the only real issue is that the planning department wishes to retain what they themselves referred to as, “useless” greenspace. The estates department have no issue with the proposal and I would be willing to purchase the land to make the changes. After considering the “individual merits and unique context” of our application, it seems clear to myself that the planning department regards the “unusable” greenspace to be of more significance than my wife’s disability. Regards James Nolan Sent from Outlook for Android 78