Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 03/03/2025
South Lanarkshire Council · 3 March 2025
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 3 March 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, 21 February 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 March 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 3 February 2025 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 5 - 6 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case – P/23/1311 for Installation of 3 Glamping Pods, Formation of 6 Parking Spaces, Landscaping and Associated Works at Land to Southeast of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke Report dated 18 February 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 7 - 10 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/23/1311 11 - 16 3b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/23/1311 17 - 28 3c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/23/1311 29 - 34 3d Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/23/1311 35 - 44 3e Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/23/1311 45 - 52 3f Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/23/1311 53 - 90 3g Appendix 6 Further Representation P/23/1311 91 - 96 4 Review of Case – P/24/0697 for Erection of Dwelling House, Detached Garage and Associated Works at Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark Report dated 18 February 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 97 - 100 4a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/24/0697 101 - 110 4b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/24/0697 111 - 120 4c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/24/0697 121 - 138 4d Appendix 2(c) Representations P/24/0697 139 - 146 4e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/24/0697 147 - 154 4f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/24/0697 155 - 162 4g Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/24/0697 163 - 278 4h Appendix 6 Further Representation P/24/0697 279 - 284 4i Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representations P/24/0697 285 - 290 2
Page 3
Urgent Business 5 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Stuart McLeod Clerk Telephone: 07385 370 117 Clerk Email: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of meeting held via Confero and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 3 February 2025 Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Colin Dewar, Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Councillor Cal Johnston-Dempsey, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Graham Scott, Councillor David Shearer Councillor’s Apology: Councillor Lesley McDonald Attending: Community and Enterprise Resources T Finn, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources S Jessup, Administration Assistant; 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 Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 2 December 2024 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The PLRB decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 3 Review of Case – Application P/24/0720 for Change of Use of Amenity Greenspace to Form Driveway and Vehicle Access at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride A report dated 20 January 2025 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/24/0720 by Mr J Nolan for the change of use of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and vehicle access at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride. 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 2 5
Page 6
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 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 of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and vehicle access at the proposed location and it would not accord with the development plan for the reasons detailed in the decision notice issued on 7 October 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/24/0720 by Mr J Nolan for the change of use of amenity greenspace to form a driveway and vehicle access at 51 Quebec Drive, East Kilbride be upheld. 4 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 6
Page 7
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 3 March 2025 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/23/1311 for Installation of 3 Glamping Pods, Formation of 6 Parking Spaces, Landscaping and Associated Works at Land to Southeast of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke 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 K McNee Proposal: Installation of 3 glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works Location: Land to Southeast of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke, ML8 5NE Council Area/Ward: 01 – Clydesdale West 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 3 7
Page 8
(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. 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)) Site photographs and location plan (Appendix 3) Decision notice (Appendix 4) Notice of Review including statement of reasons for requiring the review (Appendix 5) 8
Page 9
5.3. Copies of the relevant drawings are available for inspection by contacting Administration and Legal Services prior to the meeting. 6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 1 further representation was received, a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. This is attached as Appendix 6. 6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representation received. No comments on the further representation were received from the applicant. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 18 February 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 9
Page 10
10
Page 11
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 11
Page 12
12
Page 13
Page 1 of 3 Floor 6, Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Tel: 0303 123 1015 Email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100648275-002 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent South Lanarkshire Council LAND TO SOUTHEAST OF VALLEYVIEW COTTAGE, OLDHILL ROAD, BRAIDWOOD, SOUTH LANARKSHIRE, ML8 5NE 648144 283529 3a 13
Page 14
Page 2 of 3 Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * HAB ARCHITECTURE LTD Other Mr and Mrs Marc K Hislop McNee Fauldhouse Road Oldhill Road 6 Valleyview Cottage EH47 8AQ ML8 5NE Scotland UK Bathgate Braidwood Longridge marc@habarchitecture.com 14
Page 15
Page 3 of 3 Proposal/Application Details Please provide the details of the original application(s) below: Was the original application part of this proposal? * Yes No Application Details Please select which application(s) the new documentation is related to. Application: * Document Details Please provide an explanation as to why the documentation is being attached after the original application was submitted: * (Max 500 characters) Checklist – Post Submission Additional Documentation Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. The additional documents have been attached to this submission. * Yes No Declare – Post Submission Additional Documentation I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is a submission of Additional Documentation, and that all the information given in this submission is true to the best of my/the applicants knowledge. Declaration Name: Mr Marc Hislop Declaration Date: 13/10/2023 100648275-001, application for Planning Permission, submitted on 12/10/2023 forgot to attach letter supporting application 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
Report of Handling Report dated 1 November 2024 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 3b 17
Page 18
18
Page 19
Reference no. P/23/1311 Delegated Report Date 21 October 2024 Planning proposal: Installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works Location: Land To Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage Oldhill Road Braidwood Carluke ML8 5NE Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Mr and Mrs K McNee Location: Land To Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage Oldhill Road Braidwood Carluke ML8 5NE 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 4 Natural places Policy 8 Green belts Policy 12 Zero waste Policy 13 Sustainable transport Policy 14 Design, quality and place Policy 22 Flood risk and water management Policy 30 Tourism South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) Policy 2 Climate change Policy 4 Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Policy 6 Visitor Economy and Tourism Policy 14 Natural and Historic Development Policy 15 Travel and Transport Policy SDCC3 Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy SDCC4 Sustainable Transport Policy GBRA1 Rural Design and Development Policy GBRA2 Business Proposals within Green Belt and Rural Area Policy DM15 Water Supply Policy DM16 Foul Drainage/Sewerage Provision Policy VET2 Visitor Accommodation 3b 19
Page 20
Policy NHE16 Landscape Assessment Impact on privacy? No Impact on sunlight/daylight? No Impact on amenity? No Traffic issues? No Adheres to development plan policy? No Adverse comments from consultees? No Consultations Summary of response Roads Development Management Team Environmental Services Objection: the visibility splays with Oldhill Road have not been provided per the conditions from the previous developments on the private access and no further development along this access should occur until the visibility splays are provided and secured by a legal agreement. No adverse comments or objections, subject to conditions Representation(s): ► 0 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 20
Page 21
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The site consists of agricultural land located southwest of Oldhill Road, northeast of Lower Braidwood. It is designated as Green Belt under the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 1.2 The proposed development relates to the erection of 3 tourist accommodation pods (Class 7) including the formation of parking, private drainage, and a SUDS. The proposed pods are identical and would have a 6.0m by 3.0m rectangular footprint, an arched roof reaching a maximum height of 2.6m which also forms the side walls, wood clad front and rear elevations, a double-wide glazed door on the front elevation; and a small window on the rear elevation. The pods would be positioned parallel to each other in the southwest of the site and orientated so that the doors face southwest. A parking and turning area with 6 spaces would be formed in the northeast of the site adjacent to the existing private access from Oldhill Road. A bin store is proposed next to the parking and a waste water treatment plant and soakaway underground in front of the pods. 1.3 The Applicant’s house is adjacent to the field and is the original development off the existing access. Several dwellinghouses and a holiday let have been developed or have consent following the construction and replacement of a commercial glasshouse associated to the property. It should be noted that the field forming the application site has not been previously developed and a previous application for the erection of 2 houses (P/21/1526) was refused in June 2022. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Following a statutory period of advertisement and consultation, no valid third-party representations have been received. 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 the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 and National Planning Framework 4. Principle of Development 3.2 Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policies 4 and GBRA2 of the SLLDP2 relate to business development within the designated green belt. These policies outline that the primary purposes of the green belt are to: direct development to sustainable locations; increase urban density and prevent unsustainable growth; protect and enhance the character, landscape setting, and identity of settlements; and manage nature networks to address climate change. Development without a clear locational need to be in the Green Belt or rural area should be directed to existing settlements. 3.3 Policy 8 of NPF4 lists the acceptable situations for development in the green belt in part (i) and necessary requirements in part (ii). At least one point from part (i) and all points of part (ii) must be met. Tourism uses are an acceptable situation under part (i) however, the proposal is considered to fail two of the five requirements of part (ii). Specifically, that a green belt location is essential; and that the purpose of the greenbelt at that location is not undermined. The supporting statement and business plan fail to adequately address 21
Page 22
these requirements. The business plan lacks sufficient evidence to show that local demand for tourist accommodation cannot be met outside the Green Belt. 3.4 Although the proposed pods are adjacent to the applicant's house, a landowner's development aspirations alone do not justify a Green Belt location. Additionally, the site is near the boundary of the Green Belt and a settlement, meaning that development here, without a well-reasoned locational justification, would undermine the Green Belt's purpose of directing development to suitable locations. In the absence of a specific locational requirement, the tourist accommodation should be located on a more appropriate alternative site, either in the nearby rural area or within a defined settlement. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policy 8 of NPF4. 3.5 Policy GBRA2 of the SLLDP2 prioritises the conversion and reuse of existing buildings. Where new development is deemed essential, it should either integrate with an established building group or redevelop previously developed land. Tourism and holiday accommodation are generally considered acceptable, provided they comply with Policy 6 of the SLLDP2, discussed below. Although it is acknowledged that glamping often requires specialised structures like the proposed pods, the supporting statement fails to sufficiently justify the market demand for new development at this specific location, rather than the reuse of vacant buildings or brownfield sites. Additionally, the proposed pods are physically separated from the existing building group, which further contradicts Policy GBRA2. 3.6 Policy 30 of NPF4 and Policies 6 and VET2 of the SLLDP2 relate to tourism. Policy 30 of NPF4 supports tourism proposals on identified sites and requires consideration of their economic, visual, transportation, environmental, and amenity impacts. Policy 6 of the SLLDP2 identifies that visitor accommodation will be supported where it contributes to the visitor economy and that there are suitable access arrangements. It is subsidised by Policy VET2 setting further criteria including financial viability, and good visual integration with the surrounding area. 3.7 Since the site is designated as Green Belt and not allocated for tourism, the application requires to be supported by a comprehensive business case. In this case, the submitted business plan is insufficient, as it lacks an evidence-based analysis of the local tourism market and a detailed financial assessment of the proposed business. Therefore, the application does not provide adequate information to comply with Policy 30 of NPF4 and Policies 6 and VET2 of the SLLDP2, particularly regarding the need for and financial viability of the tourist accommodation. Consequently, the proposal also fails to meet the requirements of Policy GBRA2 of the SLLDP2. 3.8 It is noted that the supporting statement claims that the development would help preserve housing stock. However, South Lanarkshire Council does not yet consider that the use of residential properties for short-term lets is at a level to cause concern for the impact on housing stock. The Planning Service has not specified any short-term let control areas. Access & Transport 3.9 Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policies 15 and SDDC4 of the SLLDP2 promote sustainable transport and aim to facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Policy 5 of SLLDP2 has a term requiring the provision of a suitable access and parking. 3.10 The site is not safely accessible by sustainable travel options, as there are no pavements, footpaths, or public transport links within a reasonable distance. Given the nature of the development, it is likely to attract tourists who will rely on private vehicles. The Green Belt designation is intended to direct development to locations that support sustainable travel. 22
Page 23
Tourist accommodation should either be located within settlements served by multiple modes of transport or, for rural tourism, within areas where private vehicle use is essential but reasonable. This proposal places unnecessary demand on the Green Belt for unsustainable transport methods, which conflicts with Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policies 15 and SDDC4 of the SLLDP2. 3.11 The Council's Roads Authority has objected to the application on road safety grounds. Previous planning conditions regarding visibility splays with Oldhill Road have not been met on prior consents along the private access. A legal agreement would be necessary, as the applicant does not control the land required for the visibility splays. As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policy 5 of the SLLDP2 on road safety grounds. However, it is noted that the proposed parking and turning arrangements are deemed appropriate. Layout, Siting and Design 3.12 Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 4 and GBRA1 of the SLLDP2 relate to liveable places, placemaking, and the quality of the design of a development. 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. Policies 4 and GBRA1 set out that all development in the rural area should take account of, and be integrated with, the local context and built form and not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the countryside. Additionally, Policy GBRA2 requires new business development to integrate with an established building group. 3.13 The design and scale of the proposed pods are suitable for a rural setting and would be visually acceptable if the principle of development at this location were appropriate. However, the site is isolated from the existing building group, resulting in sporadic development within the rural area, which contradicts Policy GBRA2. 3.14 In terms of amenity impact, the siting and layout are appropriate to ensure that no residential neighbours are adversely affected by overshadowing or overlooking. The scale of the pods is such that detrimental levels of disturbance are unlikely to be generated. The supporting statement has justified the separation from the existing house on the grounds of amenity, although the proposal would not raise significant amenity concerns if it was sited adjacent to the applicant’s house. Natural Environment 3.15 Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 and Policy 2 of the SLLDP2 address the climate crises, requiring all development to minimise and mitigate their climate impact. Policy 3 of NPF4 outlines that local developments should conserve, restore, and enhance the biodiversity value of a site. 3.16 The supporting statement notes that the pods would be positioned to take advantage of solar gain and mentions potential biodiversity measures such as tree planting and the installation of hedgehog and bat boxes. If the principle of the development were acceptable, further details on sustainable measures, such as the provision of electric vehicle charging points and a comprehensive landscaping plan to enhance the site's biodiversity, could be requested. Additionally, the Council has other mechanisms, such as the Building Standards Service, to promote sustainable development. Therefore, the application does not raise significant concerns in this regard. 3.17 The site is within the Middle Clyde Valley Special Landscape Area (SLA). Policy 4 of NPF4 and Policies 14 and NHE16 of the SLLDP2 seek to preserve natural places and that development proposals should not have significant adverse effects on the integrity or 23
Page 24
qualities and features of an SLA. The proposed pods are small structures that are few in number so they would be unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the SLA. Technical Matters 3.18 Policy 12 of NPF4 requires waste-generating proposals to prioritise waste reduction, separation at source, and convenient waste storage and collection. A bin storage area is denoted on the site plan, but limited detail is given, such as storage shed or compound details. 3.19 Policy 22 of NPF4 and Policy SDCC3 of the SLLDP2 relate to the water environment and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). 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 a SUDS, and that they seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. The site is not at risk of flooding, and it is designed to be permeable apart from the pods, access, and parking. Although a SUDS is proposed, no specific details have been provided. 3.20 Policies DM15 and DM16 of the SLLDP2 seek to ensure appropriate supply of water and waste water services. The application proposes connection to the public water supply and private treatment for waste water as a treatment plant with outflow to soakaway. However, limited detail has been provided. 3.21 While the application lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the above technical matters, if the principle of development was acceptable then these details could be requested and/or conditioned. Therefore, lack of information is not considered sufficient justification for the proposal to be considered contrary to policy in these regards. Conclusion 3.22 The proposal seeks planning permission to use an agricultural field within the Green Belt for the erection of three tourist accommodation pods. However, the application fails to demonstrate that a Green Belt location is essential, that there is demand for tourist accommodation, or that the business would be financially viable. Moreover, the site is not identified for tourism development in the Local Development Plan. As a result, the proposal is contrary to Policies 8, 13, and 30 of National Planning Framework 4, as well as Policies 4, 5, 6, 15, SDCC4, GBRA2, and VET2 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 4 Reason for decision 4.1 The application fails to demonstrate that the green belt location is essential, that there is a demand for tourist accommodation, that it would be financially viable, and that the visibility splays with the public road would be provided. Additionally, the site is not specifically supported in the LDP for tourist development. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out above. Delegating officer: Bernard Darroch Date: 1 November 2024 24
Page 25
Previous references ♦ P/21/1526 List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Advertisement in the Carluke Gazette published 23.07.2024 ► Consultations: Roads Development Management Team 22.11.2023 Environmental Services 08.11.2023 Countryside And Greenspace No reply Eco Development No reply ► Representations: None 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 25
Page 26
Planning Application Application number: P/23/1311 Reasons for refusal 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposal is within the green belt without an acceptable locational need and the purpose of the green belt would be undermined. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, as the visibility splays required for safe access to the public road cannot be secured due to the applicant's lack of control over the land within the splays, thereby compromising road safety. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 6 - Visitor Economy and Tourism of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the application has not demonstrated that it would positively contribute to the visitor economy nor that it would be sustainable and viable in regard to the visitor demographic of the locality. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy GBRA2 - Business Proposals within Green Belt and Rural Areas of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it does not meet the terms of Policy 6 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 and the application is not accompanied by an appropriate business plan. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy VET2 - Visitor Accommodation of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the accompanying business plan does not demonstrate the need for the accommodation and financial viability of the proposal. 06. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 8 - Green Belts of National Planning Framework 4 as reasons have not been provided as to why a green belt location is essential. 07. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 30 - Tourism of National Planning Framework 4 as the site is not allocated for tourism development within the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Reason(s) for decision The application fails to demonstrate that the green belt location is essential, that there is a demand for tourist accommodation, that it would be financially viable, and that the visibility splays with the public road would be provided. Additionally, the site is not specifically supported in the LDP for tourist development. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out above. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status 2307 D101 Refused 2259 D101 Refused 26
Page 27
SPECIFICATIONS Refused 27
Page 28
28
Page 29
Consultation Responses Response dated 1 November 2023 from Environmental Services Response dated 22 November 2023 from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Appendix 2(b) 3c 29
Page 30
30
Page 31
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning and Regulatory Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: Email: To: Planning & Building Standards Services Our Ref. LKM/497321 Your Ref. P/23/1311 If Calling Ask for Laura Maitland CC: Phone 07385015409 From: Laura Maitland Date. 01/11/2023 Subject: Application Ref: P/23/1311 Address: Valleyview Cottage Oldhill Road Braidwood Carluke ML8 5NE Proposed Development: Installation of three clamping pods, formation of 6 parking I refer to the above planning application consultation and would comment as follows; I have no objections to the proposal subject to the following conditions; 1.0 Septic tank/ Treatment plant and SUDS soakaway for foul drainage Prior to the commencement of development on site, details of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) and its maintenance following installation shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The SUDS shall be designed to ensure that contaminants present on the site are not mobilised and that pollution pathways are not created. The Sustainable Urban Drainage System shall thereafter be formed and maintained on site in accordance with the approved details. I would also request that if the application is approved, then the following advisory notes are attached to the decision notice for the applicant’s information; 2.0 Contamination – Caution Although the proposed development area is not on the Council’s prioritised list of potentially contaminated land sites, it is recommended that an Action Plan is prepared in advance of works commencing, to guide staff in the event that any contamination is encountered during construction. This Plan will require the Planning Authority to be advised immediately if contamination is suspected. 3c 31
Page 32
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning and Regulatory Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: Email: 3.0 Private Water Supplies caution Please be advised that there is known to be private water supplies within 3km of the proposed development (as prescribed under Private Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2017). Any disruption caused because of the development including the associated infrastructure may require remediation to be undertaken by the developer. Should you require any further information, please contact Laura Maitland. Laura Maitland 32
Page 33
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@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Memo To: Planning Our ref: P/23/1311 Your ref: Mohammed Hussain If calling ask for: Craig Lattimer Phone: 07825583972 cc: Date: 22 November 2023 From: Stuart Laird Engineering Manager P/23/1311 - Land To Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage Oldhill Road Braidwood Carluke ML8 5NE This application is for the installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping, and associated works at the above address. This site is served from an existing private access from Oldhill Road, Carluke. The site that the existing private access serves has previous planning approval via P/22/1087 and P/23/0001 for a dwelling and change of use of an outbuilding to a short-term holiday let. It was conditioned within these applications that the existing access from Oldhill Road would be hard surfaced for the first 4 metres and that a visibility splay of 2.5m x 95m and 215m to the northwest and southeast respectively would be provided. The access has been hard surfaced, however, the visibility splay condition has yet to be discharged. This Service would recommend that no further development be approved prior to this condition being met on grounds of road safety. This Service would therefore object to this application on road safety grounds as the applicant does not control the land either side of the access at its junction with Oldhill Road which is required to allow the above visibility splays to be achieved. A legal agreement would be required with the landowner to confirm that the splay can traverse their land and that the splay will be maintained with no objects greater in height than 900mm located within this splay. Stuart Laird Engineering Manager 33
Page 34
34
Page 35
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3d 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
Photo 1 looking west 3d 37
Page 38
Photo 2 looking northwest 38
Page 39
Photo 3 looking north 39
Page 40
Photo 4 looking east 40
Page 41
Photo 5 looking south 41
Page 42
Photo 6 looking north 42
Page 43
43
Page 44
44
Page 45
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3e 45
Page 46
46
Page 47
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 Marc Hislop HAB ARCHITECTURE LTD 6 Fauldhouse Road Longridge Bathgate EH47 8AQ Our Ref: P/23/1311 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Mark Ripley Date: 5 November 2024 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works Site address: Land To Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke, ML8 5NE, Application no: P/23/1311 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: 3e 47
Page 48
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr and Mrs K McNee Per: Marc Hislop Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, ML8 5NE, 6 Fauldhouse Road, Longridge, Bathgate, EH47 8AQ, With reference to your application received on 12.10.2023 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works Site location: Land To Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke, ML8 5NE, 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: 5th November 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/23/1311 48
Page 49
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/23/1311 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposal is within the green belt without an acceptable locational need and the purpose of the green belt would be undermined. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, as the visibility splays required for safe access to the public road cannot be secured due to the applicant's lack of control over the land within the splays, thereby compromising road safety. 03. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 6 - Visitor Economy and Tourism of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the application has not demonstrated that it would positively contribute to the visitor economy nor that it would be sustainable and viable in regard to the visitor demographic of the locality. 04. The proposal would be contrary to Policy GBRA2 - Business Proposals within Green Belt and Rural Areas of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it does not meet the terms of Policy 6 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 and the application is not accompanied by an appropriate business plan. 05. The proposal would be contrary to Policy VET2 - Visitor Accommodation of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the accompanying business plan does not demonstrate the need for the accommodation and financial viability of the proposal. 06. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 8 - Green Belts of National Planning Framework 4 as reasons have not been provided as to why a green belt location is essential. 07. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 30 - Tourism of National Planning Framework 4 as the site is not allocated for tourism development within the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Reason(s) for decision The application fails to demonstrate that the green belt location is essential, that there is a demand for tourist accommodation, that it would be financially viable, and that the visibility splays with the public road would be provided. Additionally, the site is not specifically supported in the LDP for tourist development. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out above. 49
Page 50
Important notes Notes to applicant Application number: P/23/1311 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 2307 D101 Refused 2259 D101 Refused SPECIFICATIONS 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 summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1000. 2. Procedure for appeal to the planning authority 50
Page 51
(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. 51
Page 52
52
Page 53
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant Mr and Mrs K McNee Appendix 5 3f 53
Page 54
54
Page 55
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 100648275-003 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 HAB ARCHITECTURE LTD Marc Hislop Fauldhouse Road 6 EH47 8AQ Scotland Bathgate Longridge marc@habarchitecture.com 3f 55
Page 56
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 and Mrs K South Lanarkshire Council McNee Oldhill Road Valleyview Cottage ML8 5NE LAND TO SOUTHEAST OF VALLEYVIEW COTTAGE, OLDHILL ROAD, BRAIDWOOD, SOUTH LANARKSHIRE, ML8 5NE UK 648144 Braidwood 283529 56
Page 57
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unl kely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works Review is sought by applicant as the reasons for refusal seem to be addressed from the documents submitted as part of the application or there was no request from Planmning officer that information submitted was unsatisfactory. Accompanying letter highlights timeline and reasons for LRB request. 57
Page 58
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. 2307 - Letter LRC (letter to LRB from Agent); 2307_Planning Statement; Business Plan; Letter from Land Owner RE Vis Splay; 2307 - D100 PP (location plan); 2307 - D101 PP (site plan); Glamping Pod Spec; Planning Decision Notice P/23/1311 05/11/2024 12/10/2023 58
Page 59
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Marc Hislop Declaration Date: 20/12/2024 59
Page 60
2nd December 2024 PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Council Chamber Council Offices Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Our Ref: 2307 MCNEE Dear Members, Subjects: P/23/1311 -Installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works at Land To Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke, ML8 5NE, With regards to the above, we write on behalf of our clients/ the applicant, Mr and Mrs McNee with a view to seek a review, from the Local Review Body, of Planning application P/23/1311. Planning Permission was refused by delegated powers (Planning Department) however, our clients seek a review of this decision notice. We note that the main reasons for refusal are: Proposal contrary to Local and National Planning Policies (LDP and NPF4) Lack of control over the land in which the visibility splays are required Accompanying business plan not demonstrating the need for accommodation and financial viability We note that no further evidence may be supplied as part of the Local Review Body application, however for clarity we include all relevant documents submitted as part of the Planning application within this submission. We also believe it to be of importance to highlight a timeline of events which addresses the reasons for refusal. A pre-application discussion was undertaken by our clients and the planning officer at that time, Mr Mohammed Hussain on 21st September 2023. Discussions were positive, with tourism being an appropriate use for countryside development, and encouraged our client to invest in proceeding with a Planning Permission application. A Planning Permission application was prepared and submitted which included: Relevant site and location plan drawings Information relating to the proposed glamping pods A detailed planning statement which identified keys policies from LDP and NPF4 and how the proposal accorded with same A Business Plan to support the viability and locational need for the proposed tourism site Roads and Transport Through the application process, a consultation was received from SLC Roads and Transport Team with the following comments: “This Service would therefore object to this application on road safety grounds as the applicant does not control the land either side of the access at its junction with Oldhill Road which is required to allow the above visibility splays to be achieved. A legal agreement would be required with the landowner to confirm that the splay can traverse their land and that the splay will be maintained with no objects greater in height than 900mm located within this splay.” It should be noted that a number of planning applications for this area (Valleyview) have been approved with the same visibility splays. Notwithstanding this, our clients approached the land owner and received a letter which confirmed our Clients/ the applicant has permission to maintain the hedges etc included in the visibility splays for the application site. This was sent to the appointed planning officer on 29th January 2024. 60
Page 61
61
Page 62
62
Page 63
INTRODUCTION This design statement has been prepared to accompany the Planning Permission application and drawings referenced 2307 – D100 and D101. The application seeks consent for Planning Permission for the formation of a tourism site for the siting if glamping pods with associated works at Land 52M Southeast Of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, South Lanarkshire, ML8 5NE. This document is intended to support the aforementioned application and with a view to aid in granting permissions. THE CLIENT The McNee family purchased Valleyview Cottage in 2019 with a view for country living. Having enjoyed a quieter living lifestyle in the in country, the family wish to pass on the benefits of the wonderful and peaceful location onto tourists. Mr McNee is an experienced grounds worker whom can undertake must of the preparation works himself, making this very much a “family” business. THE AGENT HAB ARCHITECTURE are a small architectural practice based in West Lothian. Being centrally located they have numerous dealings within the central belt. We aim to adopt contemporary design standards to design bespoke spaces to suit our clients needs whilst aiming to reduce the impact on the environment. With a vast range of experience in domestic architecture and small scale commercial works, our focus is on sustainable development whilst adopting high design standards through adopting traditional style development with modern contemporary twists. Through our designs we aim to utilise the sun path and key features of a site to influence our proposals and make for comfortable living environments. 63
Page 64
THE SITE Valleyview sits in an idyllic location, approximately half a mile north west of Braidwood and enjoys commanding views over Clyde valley and the surrounding countryside. The town of Carluke is about 2 miles to the north east and offers a good range of local day to day amenities including convenience shops, whilst Lanark about 5 miles to the north west offers a wider range of facilities including secondary schooling, doctor and dentist surgeries, a hospital, leisure facilities and excellent shopping. South Lanarkshire is one of Scotland’s most diverse counties combining all the advantages of a prosperous urban economy with a beautiful rural landscape and rich cultural heritage. Positioned in the heart of the central lowlands, the area is ideally located to allow its inhabitants to enjoy the full benefits of the excellent rail and road links to the rest of Scotland and the UK. The site is located within the Green Belt of the Clyde Valley to the south of Carluke and is accessed via a private access road. To the northwest of the application site lie 4 dwellinghouses (one existing, one under construction and two approved). To the northwest and north lies Maregill Burn, a Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). To the northeast and southwest lies open agricultural land. Historically this area is presumed to have been for agricultural use with the erection of the agricultural glass houses erected in the 1990’s/ early 2000’s. This area of South Lanarkshire county can be characterised as open rolling fields, agricultural land with clusters of developments which are sporadic throughout the countryside. Numerous planning applications have been submitted for the close vicinity of the site and are identified below… • P/21/1527- Erection of detached building for storage of commercial vehicles, householder cars and domestic storage- Approved • P/21/1526 - Erection of 2 no. detached dwellinghouses and formation of associated vehicular accesses- Refused • P/20/0011 - Formation of 1 house plot and associated access - Approved • P/18/0903 - Erection of single storey dwellinghouse, domestic garage and formation of associated vehicular access (amendment to CL/15/0398) - Approved • P/18/0899 - Erection of single storey dwellinghouse and formation of associated vehicular access - Approved • CL/15/0398 - Erection of single storey dwellinghouse - Approved • CL/00/0447 - Erection of agricultural glasshouse - Approved • CL/99/0051 - Erection of dwellinghouse and detached double garage - Approved Valley view generally consists of small scale cluster developments of housing or farms. 64
Page 65
There are a few successful glamping sites operating within the wider Lanarkshire area in within the central belt itself. However, there are none in the Carluke and Braidwood region, presenting a shortage of suitable tourist accommodate for the area, thus presenting an opening in the market and area for tourism. The application site is a section of land to the south east of Valleyview Cottage, which is in ownership of our clients. No exaggerated slopes are present to the land (appears generally level) with outlooks over rolling fields and the Clyde Valley to the west. The existing boundaries are delineated by post and wire fences with a well established “farm” track to the southern boundary. Furthermore, said track is bounded to the south by another post and wire fence with well established hedges and trees. The track provides a natural break between the area of “development” and the existing farmland. With the existing features of the site it is readily apparent this can be classed as a gap site identified as being … “the layout of a group of buildings may allow the infill of a small area up to a natural boundary, for example an established tree belt or other landscaping feature”. Existing access arrangements are present via a track road off Braidwood Road which serves Valleyview Cottage and understand is being extended to serve the recently granted dwellinghouses. The site is not identified as an area that would present an issue with flooding from searches using the SEPA flood risk assessment maps. 65
Page 66
THE PROPOSAL The proposal for the site is to install initially 3 glamping pods with associated parking, landscaping features and a bin store. This will give much needed holiday accommodation for visitors to South Lanarkshire who may wish to spend more time exploring the many tourist opportunities offered. A site analysis was firstly undertaken to identify key aspects which were identified to be - open area to the south maximising solar gains and sunshine (natural light) - idyllic view to northwest looking down the valley (aim to maximise views) In turn, the pods were located the South West of the site optimising views over the Clyde Valley and take advantage of solar gains. The development site is also to be located in such a way that they are “separate” from the residential accommodation to reduce any impact of residents amenity. The proposal is adopt glamping pods for their low impact development and structure attributes, reducing carbon emissions during construction. Each pod proposed is a stock design, comprising of a living/ bedroom area, shower room and small kitchenette. The pod’s glazed entry doors would then open up onto a decked area providing expansive views over the Clyde Valley and take advantage of the setting sun. 66
Page 67
The proposal is to limit vehicular movements on the site. A parking area will be located at the entrance of the site and surfaced paths will lead to the glamping pods. Existing boundary treatments (post and wire fences and boundary hedges) are to remain but are also enhanced by the introduction of trees for screening and boundary hedge to the South West of the site. Trees are proposed to be planted to enhance the site and the feeling of being in nature. This will also screen the pods from view from the roadside and provide privacy for the occupants of the glamping pods. Adopting guidance from Nature Scot: Developing with Nature guidance, it is identified that the proposal is to adopt at least 1 measure for “Planting for Nature”. The proposal is to enhance the South Eastern boundary by planting trees. Species are to be agreed with the Planning Department but it is expected to be a combination of Birch and Rowan trees. At least 1 measure for “Providing Homes for Nature” is adopted via measure 12: Homes for Hedgehogs and measure 15: Homes for Bats. The existing post and wire fence permit hedgehog highways and is to be coupled with the installation of hedgehog houses. This will also be combined with the installation of external bat boxes. The introduction of tourism would contribute positively to the local and wider area by bringing individuals to the local towns and villages to spend money, and contributing to the economy of the area. There is ever growing pressure from short term AirBnB lets which tend to occupy the much needed domestic housing for the local area. This project seeks to address this with the installation on new units, clearly identified as short terms stays which cannot be used for housing. It is identified that there are no mains sewers in the vicinity of the application site, as such a private measure of drainage must be adopted. The proposal would be to adopt a SUD’s design by means of a septic tank/ treatment plant (for foul drainage) that could then outfall to a soakaway, which would be combined to take surface water drainage. This will be located the South Western edge of the site, minimum 5m distance from any boundary of structure. 67
Page 68
PLANNING POLICY The proposal has been designed with reference to the following policies: SOUTH LANARKSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ADOPTED JANUARY 2021) POLICY GBRA1 RURAL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Within the Green Belt and Rural Area all proposed developments will require to adhere to the following criteria: 1. Developments shall be sited in a manner that respects existing built form, land form and local landscape character and setting. 2. Proposed developments shall be well related to locally traditional patterns of scale and shall avoid the introduction of suburban-style developments into the rural environment. Proposals specifically for residential development should not be isolated or sporadic. 3. Proposals shall be of a high quality, of either traditional or contemporary innovative design which interprets and adapts traditional principles and features. 4. Proposals shall make use of appropriate materials which respect and reinforce local character and identity. 5. Developments shall have no unacceptable adverse impacts on existing residential amenity, particularly in terms of overlooking or overshadowing of existing residential properties. 6. Proposals relating to residential development, including extensions and alterations, shall conform to the requirements of the Council's Residential Design Guide and, in particular, shall ensure the provision of appropriate private amenity space to all existing and proposed residential properties. 7. Development proposals shall incorporate suitable boundary treatment and landscaping proposals to minimise the visual impact of the development on the surrounding landscape. Existing trees, woodland and boundary features such as beech and hawthorn hedgerows and stone dykes, shall be retained on site. A landscape framework shall be provided, where appropriate, to demonstrate how the development would fit into the landscape and improve the overall appearance of the site. Response – The pods are to be located the South West of the site optimising views over the Clyde Valley and take advantage of solar gains. The development site is also to be located in such a way that they are “separate” from the residential accommodation to reduce any impact of residents amenity. The proposal is suitable in scale for the green belt area (low impact development and structures) and is also enhanced by planting of trees to provide screening to the road. Existing boundary treatments (post and wire fences and boundary hedges) are to remain but are also enhanced by the introduction of trees for screening. 68
Page 69
POLICY GBRA2 BUSINESS PROPOSALS WITHIN GREEN BELT AND RURAL AREA For new businesses and those seeking to relocate to, or extend within the Green Belt and Rural Area, the preference is to re-use or convert existing buildings. Sympathetic extensions and alterations to existing structures may also be acceptable. Where it is shown that appropriate buildings are not available to accommodate the needs of the business, new development may be acceptable where it is shown to integrate within an established building group or it involves the redevelopment of previously developed land. The following types of development are considered appropriate in the Green Belt and Rural Area: 1. Extensions to existing rural business, subject to provision of a reasoned justification for expansion. 2. Agricultural, forestry and horticultural developments, subject to providing details of the proposed business and evidence that land available to them is sufficient for current and future needs (Commercial equestrian developments shall be considered under policy GBRA3). 3. Recreation, tourism, holiday accommodation, leisure and sporting developments subject to meeting the criteria in Policy 6 Visitor Economy and Tourism. 4. Farm diversification proposals, where an existing traditional building is converted. In exceptional circumstances, and generally within the rural area only, limited new build may be considered. Proposals should be complementary to farming activities on the rest of the farm. 5. Agricultural engineering and contracting, rural/agricultural repair services, limited storage of buses or caravan storage, boarding kennels and catteries which can operate entirely from existing rural residential properties, former farm steadings or existing buildings. 6. Renewable Energy or Mineral Extraction proposals which accord with Policies 18 and 19 in Volume 1. 7. In exceptional circumstances, proposals for larger scale business development that generates strategic or locally important employment opportunities where wider economic benefits and a specific locational need can be demonstrated and satisfactory mitigation of any adverse impacts can be achieved. All uses and development types other than those listed above shall be assessed on their merits. The location, siting and design of the proposed development shall meet existing rural design policy and guidance as set out in Policy GBRA1 and in supporting planning guidance. In addition, where required, a 5 year business plan shall be submitted. Response – The proposal is for glamping pods (tourism facility) and is also covered under policy 6 (VET 2 Visitor Accommodation). The proposal is demonstrated to accord with Policy GBRA1 and a business plan supporting the application has also been submitted. 69
Page 70
POLICY VET2 VISITOR ACCOMMODATION Proposals for new visitor accommodation and extensions to existing accommodation shall be supported where they respect the existing development pattern within the locality and avoid dispersed patterns of development and visually integrate well with the location of the site and surrounding area. The form and type of accommodation proposed should be tailored, where appropriate, to suit the proposed visitor demographic for which it is targeted: for example outdoor pursuits may be more suited to bunk house accommodation. Where the scale, external design and materials of the proposal have the character and appearance of a dwellinghouse, such a proposal will be assessed under Policy GBRA1 - Rural Design and Development. In all cases proposals shall comply with the following criteria: 1. A business plan showing the need for the accommodation and the financial viability of the proposal should be provided. 2. Proposals for new buildings within the countryside shall be of a form, design and scale consistent with Policy GBRA1 Rural Design and Development. Proposals may involve traditional design and materials or, alternatively, a high quality and bespoke contemporary design with effective use of composite materials suitable for the area in which the site is located. 3. For proposals within a settlement boundary the form, design and scale shall take cognisance of the established character within the streetscape. Where no distinct character or value exists, a high quality contemporary design is encouraged. 4. The conversion and, where appropriate, extension of traditional rural buildings should accord with guidance on this form of development in Policy GBRA4. Extensions or alterations which overwhelm the character of the original building will not be supported. 5. The continuous occupation of new tourist accommodation in the countryside will be controlled by planning condition(s) to ensure that it is not occupied on a permanent residential basis. Proposals to convert tourist accommodation with an existing occupancy condition to other uses must be supported by evidence showing that it has been actively marketed at a reasonable market price for a minimum of a year with no formal interest having been shown in the property and that the current business is no longer viable. Response – The proposal is for glamping pods (tourism facility) and a business plan has been submitted to support the project. The development adheres to Policy GBRA1 peer the aforementioned responses. The pods are to be located the South West of the site optimising views over the Clyde Valley and take advantage of solar gains. The development site is also to be located in such a way that they are “separate” from the residential accommodation to reduce any impact of residents amenity. The proposal is suitable in scale for the green belt area (low impact development and structures) and is also enhanced by planting of trees to provide screening to the road. Existing boundary treatments (post and wire fences and boundary hedges) are to remain but are also enhanced by the introduction of trees for screening. 70
Page 71
NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK 4 POLICY 3 – BIODIVERSITY a) Development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature-based solutions, where possible. c) Proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with national and local guidance. Measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development. Applications for individual householder development, or which fall within scope of (b) above, are excluded from this requirement. d) Any potential adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of development proposals on biodiversity, nature networks and the natural environment will be minimised through careful planning and design. This will take into account the need to reverse biodiversity loss, safeguard the ecosystem services that the natural environment provides, and build resilience by enhancing nature networks and maximising the potential for restoration. Response – The application is regarded as a Local Development. The site can be regarded as vacant land with grass growing. Existing boundary treatments (post and wire fences and boundary hedges) are to remain but are also enhanced by the introduction of trees for screening. Adopting guidance from Nature Scot: Developing with Nature guidance, it is identified that the proposal is to adopt at least 1 measure for “Planting for Nature”. The proposal is to enhance the South Eastern boundary by planting trees. Species are to be agreed with the Planning Department but it is expected to be a combination of Birch and Rowan trees. At least 1 measure for “Providing Homes for Nature” is adopted via measure 12: Homes for Hedgehogs and measure 15: Homes for Bats. The existing post and wire fence permit hedgehog highways and is to be coupled with the installation of hedgehog houses. This will also be combined with the installation of external bat boxes. 71
Page 72
POLICY 8 – GREEN BELTS a) Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported if: i) they are for: • development associated with agriculture, woodland creation, forestry and existing woodland (including community woodlands); • residential accommodation required and designed for a key worker in a primary industry within the immediate vicinity of their place of employment where the presence of a worker is essential to the operation of the enterprise, or retired workers where there is no suitable alternative accommodation available; • horticulture, including market gardening and directly connected retailing, as well as community growing; • outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourism uses; and developments that provide opportunities for access to the open countryside (including routes for active travel and core paths); • flood risk management (such as development of blue and green infrastructure within a “drainage catchment” to manage/mitigate flood risk and/or drainage issues); • essential infrastructure or new cemetery provision; • minerals operations and renewable energy developments; • intensification of established uses, including extensions to an existing building where that is ancillary to the main use; • the reuse, rehabilitation and conversion of historic environment assets; or • one-for-one replacements of existing permanent homes. And ii) the following requirements are met: • reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt; • the purpose of the green belt at that location is not undermined; • the proposal is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character; • the proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible; and • there will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. Comment – The site is located within SLC’s greenbelt (identified in the Local Development Plan) and would be used for tourism, providing links to the wider Clyde Valley area. A business plan supporting the application has been submitted identifying the need for tourism in the area. The proposal is suitable in scale for the green belt area (low impact development and structures) and is also enhanced by planting of trees to provide screening to the road. 72
Page 73
POLICY 30 – TOURISM a) Development proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation, including caravan and camping sites, in locations identified in the LDP, will be supported. b) Proposals for tourism related development will take into account: i. The contribution made to the local economy; ii. Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors; iii. Impacts on communities, for example by hindering the provision of homes and services for local people; iv. Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas; v. Accessibility for disabled people; vi. Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions; vii. Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. c) Development proposals that involve the change of use of a tourism-related facility will only be supported where it is demonstrated that the existing use is no longer viable and that there is no requirement for alternative tourism-related facilities in the area. d) Proposals for huts will be supported where the nature and scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding area and the proposal complies with relevant good practice guidance. e) Development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings for short term holiday letting will not be supported where the proposal will result in: i. An unacceptable impact on local amenity or the character of a neighbourhood or area; or ii. The loss of residential accommodation where such loss is not outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits. Comment – SLC’s LDP identifies the site as a suitable area for Tourism, see policy X from the aforementioned. The introduction of tourism would contribute positively to the local and wider area by bringing individuals to the local towns and villages to spend money, and contributing to the economy of the area. The proposal is suitable in scale for the green belt area (low impact development and strucutres, reducing carbon emissions during construction) and is also enhanced by planting of trees to provide screening to the road. There is ever growing pressure from short term AirBnB lets which tend to occupy the much needed domestic housing for the local area. This project seeks to address this with the installation on new units, clearly identified as short terms stays which cannot be used for housing. 73
Page 74
CONCLUSION The proposal for the site is to install initially 3 glamping pods with associated parking, landscaping features and a bin store. This will give much needed holiday accommodation for visitors to South Lanarkshire who may wish to spend more time exploring the many tourist opportunities offered. The development will integrate with the surrounding area and be enhanced through biodiversity measures including the planting of trees and providing homes for nature. These will also become an attraction for tourists visiting the site. There is a justifiable need for a glamping site for the area, as evidenced in the supporting business statement. The proposal is adopt glamping pods for their low impact development and structure attributes, reducing carbon emissions during construction. It is hoped the Planning department can appreciate the merits of the project with a view to supporting the proposed application. However, should there be any queries our client and ourselves would be open for discussions to come to a positive agreement. Marc Hislop BSc (Hons), MSc, MCIAT, AssocRICS Director – HAB ARCHITECTURE LTD 74
Page 75
1 BUSINESS PLAN VALLEYVIEW GLAMPING, VALLEYVIEW COTTAGE, BRAIDWOOD 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
77
Page 78
78
Page 79
79
Page 80
80
Page 81
81
Page 82
82
Page 83
Garden Pod BRETA (28 mm), 3x6 m (10'x20'), 18 m² Product #AV355 Interchange the opposite walls! Premium windows & doors Tongue & Groove floorboards included Hardware kit included Window and door seals included Pure glass – no cheap plastic Reliable floor bearers Polite & Convenient delivery Made while protecting the forests Better resistance to rot & mould Moisture resistant door and windows Reinforced roof construction Secure locks & hinges Direct from the factory £4,622.00 £5,315.00 / You save £693.00 The price includes: flooring, pressure treated floor bearers, delivery, offloading, hardware kit & VAT. Visit our website to make sure this is the current price: https://www.quick- garden.co.uk/AV355 Finance available. Contact us! Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 83
Page 84
Specifications & detailed sketches Page 2 of 7 Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 84
Page 85
Page 3 of 7 Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 85
Page 86
Page 4 of 7 Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 86
Page 87
Product specifications Wall 28 mm Material Slow grown spruce Doors 130 cm x 172 cm (1 unit); 70 cm x 192 cm (1 unit) Floor area 18 m² Windows 70 cm x 105 cm (1 unit) Ridge Height 256 cm Roof 28 mm thick tongue & groove boards Roof Overhang (Front, Side, Back) 10 cm Floor 19 - 20 mm thick tongue & groove boards Anti Rot Warranty 10 Year Total Number of Rooms 2 External dimensions (WxD), Metric 300 x 600 cm Roof Covering Material Optional Wood Treatment Optional Select product features according to your needs Installation service (Starting from £1596 ) +£0.00 25 mm Roof & Floor insulation +£505.00 Timber frame base With PVC pedestals With metal ground screws +£906.00 +£1,466.00 Bitumen roofing shingles + underlay Red shingles Green shingles Black shingles +£695.00 +£695.00 +£695.00 Clear water based priper for interior RP Wood® (supplied in tins) +£35.00 Page 5 of 7 Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 87
Page 88
TIKKURILA Ultra Classic paints +£223.00 +£169.00 +£161.00 +£97.00 Page 6 of 7 Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 88
Page 89
Customer Service Free delivery * Mainland England and Wales 4 - 8 working days for products in stock 4 - 8 weeks for products not in stock or custom-made products Mainland Scotland 8 - 15 working days for products in stock 4 - 8 weeks for products not in stock or custom-made products * An extra charge for deliveries to mainland Scotland applies only for items which are priced under £3000. In such cases you will find these charges on each product page. For all items whose price is over £3000, delivery to mainland Scotland is free of charge. Payment We accept card and bank payments. To submit your order, you can either choose to pay a deposit of 20% of the total price or to pay the whole price in one go. Planning permission Contact us for any advice you may need regarding basic planning permission or building regulation matters. We will always be happy to help you. 10 yrs. warranty All garden buildings with a wall thickness of at least 34mm come with a 10-year anti-rot guarantee. Structures with 28mm wall thickness come with a corresponding 5- year anti-rot guarantee. Page 7 of 7 Call us 02070 994 301 Mon-Fri: 8am-5pm clients@quick-garden.co.uk • www.quick-garden.co.uk 89
Page 90
The Planning Decision Notice is included at Appendix 4 of the review documents. 90
Page 91
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 3g 91
Page 92
92
Page 93
Page 1 of 3 Date: 13 January 2025 Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Local Review Body: Planning Appeal Response Proposal: Installation of three glamping pods, formation of 6 parking spaces, landscaping and associated works Applicant: Site address: Mr and Mrs K McNee Land To Southeast of Valleyview Cottage, Oldhill Road, Braidwood, Carluke, ML8 5NE Application no: P/23/1311 In respect of the Statement of Case for this Notice of Review, the report of handling associated with application P/23/1311 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 asserts that a pre-application discussion with one of the Council’s planning officers was positive and encouraged investment in the proposal. Planning officers cannot offer any guarantees that a planning application for a development proposal will be approved. When the Planning Service provides pre- application advice, the constraints and requirements of the development plan are explained. It is then for an applicant to decide whether to proceed in consideration of the advice given. The Planning Service would note that all investments and speculative developments bear financial risk. 2. The appeal statement informs that the planning officer was changed during assessment, that no forewarning of a refusal was given, and that no opportunity to submit further information was afforded. The planning officer changed due to staff turnover. However, the planning service does not pre-determine applications and following a detailed assessment of the proposal, it was considered that the principle of the development was not acceptable. During assessment, correspondence was received seeking a determination. In this regard, it was not considered appropriate to ask for further information considering the policy failings, the information already submitted, and the time that had passed since the application had been lodged. Therefore, the application was determined and refused consent primarily due to the 3g 93
Page 94
Page 2 of 3 fact that the proposal did not comply with greenbelt policy, both NPF4 and LDPS. The Planning Service would note that it is the responsibility of an applicant to fully prepare their submission based on any pre-application advice and the policy requirements of the development plan which are publicly available. 3. The appeal statement informs that a letter was submitted which confirms that the adjacent landowner would allow the applicant to maintain hedges within the required visibility splay. The received letter is not enforceable, and no burdens exist in the respective land titles to ensure that visibility splays could be legally maintained. Therefore, it was not be appropriate to apply a planning condition. Consequently, there is a valid road safety concern and the second reason for refusal is justified. As the application fails other considerations of the development plan, it would not have been appropriate for the Planning Service to request that the Applicant undertake work to secure the appropriate burdens, which would bear a financial cost. 4. The appeal statement suggests that tourism sites are suitable diversification of farms. Farm diversification must relate to the farming business. It does not mean that farmland is suitable for the establishment of a new unrelated business. For example, a shop or café selling the farms produce could be considered farm diversification. However, the proposed tourist accommodation has no direct relation to farming. 5. The appeal statement asserts that the submitted business plan does outline the financial viability and locational need for the tourism site. As set out in the officer’s report of handling, the business plan is not considered to demonstrate financial viability and locational need. The statements or figures within the plan aren’t supported by evidence. It makes blanket statements on the popularity of glamping and there is no forecast of installation and operating costs or break even and return on investment analyses. The plan also does not sufficiently justify why this business needs to be located on this site within the green belt as opposed to an appropriate site outwith the green belt. Overall, the appeal statement does not provide sufficient justification to overturn the reasons for refusal. The Council has taken a consistent approach in terms of its interpretation of the development plan regarding tourist accommodation within the green belt. The South Lanarkshire Council Planning Committee and the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) have concluded on several occasions that new tourist accommodation is not appropriate in the green belt and should be located within settlements or appropriate rural sites outwith the green belt. Recent examples include P/23/1277 and P/22/0508, tourist 94
Page 95
Page 3 of 3 accommodation in the green belt refused at Planning Committee with an appeal for P/22/0508 dismissed by DPEA, and P/24/0315 and P/23/0951, tourist accommodation proposals approved in the wider rural area. Whilst each application must be determined on its individual merits, this clearly shows that the policy approach taken on application P/23/1311 is consistent with how South Lanarkshire Council has applied the development plan. 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. 95
Page 96
96
Page 97
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 3 March 2025 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/24/0697 for Erection of Dwelling House, Detached Garage and Associated Works at Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to present the information currently available to allow a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, on the following application:- [purpose] 1.2. Summary Application Information Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Mr Bob Guy Proposal: Erection of a dwelling house, detached garage and associated works Location: Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark, ML11 0RW Council Area/Ward: 04 – Clydesdale 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 4 97
Page 98
[1recs] 3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to the Planning Committee for a decision. 3.2. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where an application for planning permission relates to a proposal that falls within the category of “local development” and has been or could have been determined under the Scheme of Delegation, the applicant is entitled to request that the determination be reviewed by the Planning Local Review Body. 4. Notice of Review – Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review 4.1. In submitting their Notice of Review, the applicant has stated their reasons for requiring a review of the determination in respect of their application. (Refer Appendix 5) 4.2. The applicant is entitled to state a preference for procedure (or combination of procedures) to be followed and has indicated that their stated preference is as follows:- Further written submissions X Site inspection 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. 98
Page 99
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 2 further representations were received, including a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. These are attached as Appendix 6. 6.2. The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received. Comments from the applicant’s agent are contained in the submission attached as Appendix 7. 6.3. As referred to at paragraph 5.1, Section 43B of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 restricts the ability of parties to introduce new material at the review stage. Reference was made to a new matter in the further representation received from an interested party and was subsequently responded to in the comments provided by the applicant’s agent. Given that this material was not before the officer who dealt with the application under the Scheme of Delegation, references to the new matter have been redacted from both submissions. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 18 February 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 99
Page 100
100
Page 101
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 4a 101
Page 102
102
Page 103
Page 1 of 7 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 100673972-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Type of Application What is this application for? Please select one of the following: * Application for planning permission (including changes of use and surface mineral working). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application, (including renewal of planning permission, modification, variation or removal of a planning condition etc) Application for Approval of Matters specified in conditions. Description of Proposal Please describe the proposal including any change of use: * (Max 500 characters) Is this a temporary permission? * Yes No If a change of use is to be included in the proposal has it already taken place? Yes No (Answer ‘No’ if there is no change of use.) * Has the work already been started and/or completed? * No Yes – Started Yes - Completed Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Proposed one-and-a-half storey dwelling and 3 bay garage 4a 103
Page 104
Page 2 of 7 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: * Mr Matthew Bob O'Neill Guy 21 Portland Road Glasgow Road 334 Thomson Hunter Associates KA1 2BT G72 9LQ Scotland Scotland Kilmarnock Blantyre matthew@thomsonhunter.co.uk post@thomsonhunter.co.uk 104
Page 105
Page 3 of 7 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Site Area Please state the site area: Please state the measurement type used: Hectares (ha) Square Metres (sq.m) Existing Use Please describe the current or most recent use: * (Max 500 characters) Access and Parking Are you proposing a new altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If Yes please descr be and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. BRAIDLEA COTTAGE 2624.00 Grassland *Note: previous planning approval for dwelling house - application no.: CL/14/0177 South Lanarkshire Council BRAIDLEA DOUGLAS WEST LANARK ML11 0RW 630966 283053 105
Page 106
Page 4 of 7 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 Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. Are you proposing to connect to the public water supply network? * Yes No, using a private water supply No connection required If No, using a private water supply, please show on plans the supply and all works needed to provide it (on or off site). 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 0 5 106
Page 107
Page 5 of 7 If Yes or No, please provide further details: * (Max 500 characters) Residential Units Including Conversion Does your proposal include new or additional houses and/or flats? * Yes No How many units do you propose in total? * Please provide full details of the number and types of units on the plans. Additional information may be provided in a supporting statement. All Types of Non Housing Development – Proposed New Floorspace Does your proposal alter or create non-residential floorspace? * Yes No Schedule 3 Development Does the proposal involve a form of development listed in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Yes No Don’t Know Planning (Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 * If yes, your proposal will additionally have to be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area of the development. Your planning authority will do this on your behalf but will charge you a fee. Please check the planning authority’s website for advice on the additional fee and add this to your planning fee. If you are unsure whether your proposal involves a form of development listed in Schedule 3, please check the Help Text and Guidance notes before contacting your planning authority. Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * 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 Bin storage and bin collection point has been highlighted in drawing 23.184.01(003)C 1 107
Page 108
Page 6 of 7 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: Matthew O'Neill On behalf of: Mr Bob Guy Date: 04/06/2024 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * Checklist – Application for Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application 108
Page 109
Page 7 of 7 g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters) Provide copies of the following documents if applicable: A copy of an Environmental Statement. * Yes N/A A Design Statement or Design and Access Statement. * Yes N/A A Flood Risk Assessment. * Yes N/A A Drainage Impact Assessment (including proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems). * Yes N/A Drainage/SUDS layout. * Yes N/A A Transport Assessment or Travel Plan Yes N/A Contaminated Land Assessment. * Yes N/A Habitat Survey. * Yes N/A A Processing Agreement. * Yes N/A Other Statements (please specify). (Max 500 characters) Declare – For Application to Planning Authority I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application to the planning authority as described in this form. The accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information are provided as a part of this application. Declaration Name: Mr Matthew O'Neill Declaration Date: 04/06/2024 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 04/06/2024 11:29 109
Page 110
110
Page 111
Report of Handling Report dated 4 October 2024 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 4b 111
Page 112
112
Page 113
Reference no. P/24/0697 Delegated Report Date 1 October 2024 Planning proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Location: Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW Application Type: Detailed planning application Applicant: Mr Bob Guy Location: Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW Decision: Other action/notes: Application Refused (1) None Report by: Area Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: National Planning Framework 4 Policies ♦ Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises ♦ Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation ♦ Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place ♦ Policy 15 - Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods ♦ Policy 16 - Quality homes ♦ Policy 17 – Rural homes SLLDP2 Volume 1 Policies ♦ Policy 2 – Climate Change ♦ Policy 4 – Green Belt and Rural Area ♦ Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking ♦ Policy 15 – Travel and Transport SLLDP2 Volume 2 Policies ♦ Policy GBRA8 - Development of Gap Sites ♦ Policy DM1 – New Development Design 4b 113
Page 114
Assessment Impact on privacy? No Impact on sunlight/daylight? No Impact on amenity? No Traffic issues? No Adheres to development plan policy? No Adverse comments from consultees? No Consultations Summary of response Arboricultural Officer Countryside and Greenspace Environmental Services Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services (Development) Management) Roads and Transportation Services (Flooding) Scottish Water Scottish Power The Coal Authority No response to date. No objection commenting that the core path CL/3345/1 shall be kept open at all times which appears to currently happen. No objection subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to noise levels for the proposed house, audible construction noise, residential waste control and appropriate water supply provision. No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to car parking provision and the installation of a drain where the proposed driveway meets the private access. It is also noted from a site visit and plans that there is a burn that runs through the proposed front garden of the site and that Flood Risk Management have been consulted and should comment upon any design requirements. No response to date. No objection. No objection commenting that they have apparatus in the vicinity and reserve the right to protect/deviate their apparatus at the applicant’s expense. No objection following the submission of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment. Representation(s): ► 2 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 114
Page 115
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The application site is located at Broadlea approximately 1 km to the west of Douglas and lies the residential properties at Braidlea and Edgewood. The site is situated at the northern edge of Douglas Water flood plain which rises gradually westwards above the flood plain towards a well-established woodland backdrop and traversed at the south- eastern side by Broadlea burn. The site is accessed off Station Road along a private road which is around 600 metres in length. 1.2 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 4-bedroom detached dwellinghouse, detached triple garage and associated works. The proposed development would utilise the existing single-track private access to serve the site. The proposal also involves the erection of a small bridge crossing over the existing burn ditch which would form part of the driveway. The proposed materials for the dwellinghouse would be stone, white render, larch cladding and red roof tiles. The proposed triple garage would be located to the rear corner of the site behind the proposed dwellinghouse and would be finished with a red brick base course, timber cladding and red roof tiles. A proposed sewerage treatment is indicated on the proposed site plan within the curtilage of the application site. 1.3 Planning application CL/14/0177 was granted in June 2014 for the erection of a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse. It should be noted that the applicant’s agent has submitted emails commenting that they consider that the CL/14/0177 consent was initiated and as such remains extant. The Council position is that this permission lapsed in 2017 with none of the suspensive conditions discharged. Whilst there is a notification from 2016 advising that they intended to initiate development, there is nothing in our records to demonstrate that the suspensive conditions were discharged, or a legal site start agreed. It is established UK planning practice (Whitley v Secretary of State for Wales 1992 and Hart Aggregates Ltd v Hartlepool Borough Council 2005) that failure to discharge suspensive conditions which apply directly to the principle of development (i.e. a condition to ensure that suitable water and drainage arrangements are in place for a residential dwelling) means that any works on site do not constitute a lawful start of the permission in question. As such, planning permission CL/14/0177 expired in 2017. 1.4 It should be noted that the agent requested that the processing of the planning application be put on hold to provide them with time to prepare a supporting statement. The Planning Service agreed to this and subsequently a supporting statement has been submitted which in summary considers that the site complies with NPF4 and SLLDP2 Policies. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Following statutory neighbour notification and advertisement in the local press in respect of non-notification of neighbours, 2 letters of objection have been received. The issues raised can be summarised as follows: - ♦ Contrary to SLLDP2. ♦ Loss of privacy/overlooking. ♦ Loss of sunlight/daylight. ♦ Noise and disturbance to neighbouring proprietors and farmers livestock. ♦ Adverse impact on nature conservation area including badgers and natural ecosystems. ♦ Traffic generation/impact on access road which needs to kept clear for livestock. 115
Page 116
♦ Drainage/infrastructure the development would require crossing a water course which SEPA would strongly object to. ♦ Title Deeds have a clause that prevents another house being built at this site. The above issues are considered in the assessment below. 3 Assessment and Conclusions 3.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning consent for the erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works at Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark. The determining issues in the consideration of this application are its compliance with the development plan, which consists of National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) and South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021). 3.2 Principle of Development In terms of the principle of development, housing in the countryside is considered under NPF4 Policy 17 Rural Homes. This policy applies specifically to rural homes and aims to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Development proposals for new homes in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. Under Policy 17 development will be supported where it meets identified policy criteria. 3.3 In respect of the policy criteria, the site is not identified as a housing site in the SLLDP2. The site is located out with the settlement boundary and is therefore not compliant. No robust justification has been provided to consider that a return to a natural state for the land has not or will not happen without intervention over time. The site does not reuse an existing residential building and has no historic asset which could be appropriately reused and would not support management of a rural business; nor is the proposal sought for retirement succession of a viable farm holding and it does not seek to sub-divide or replace an existing house. 3.4 The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 17 as no policy justification is provided for this proposal and the principle cannot therefore be established. Overall, the site is unsustainably located, and it is considered that the previous planning consent (prior to the introduction of NPF4) has expired. Therefore, the proposal cannot be accepted in principle. 3.5 In terms of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2), Policy 4 – Green Belt and Rural Area is also relevant. This policy states that, within the rural area, only high-quality, small-scale development in the right place will be supported. Development which does not require to be located in the countryside will be required to be accommodated within existing settlements. This proposal would result in new housing on undeveloped land and does not require to be located within the countryside. As such, it would be contrary to Policy 4 of the SLLDP2. 3.6 Policy GBRA8 Development of Gap Sites of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) is relevant. Given the relationship of the site with adjoining dwellings, its proposed development would meet the requirements for a gap site as set out in SLLDP2. It is therefore considered that the proposal raises no issues in relation to Policy GBRA8 of the SLLDP2. 3.7 In summary the principle of the proposed residential development at this location is contrary to SLLDP2 Policy 4 and NPF4 Policy 17 of the current Development Plan. Whilst the proposal appears to draw some support from SLLDP2 Policy GBRA8, the criteria of Policy 17 directly contradicts the content of Policy GBRA8 in this instance, and taking into 116
Page 117
account the obligations of Section 24(3) of the Act, the principle of the proposed residential development at this location is therefore clearly contrary to the current Development Plan. 3.8 Climate Change and Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate mitigation and adaptation and Policy 2 – Climate Change of the SLLDP2 seek to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis, and which minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The Council as Planning Authority recognises its role in combating the climate and has mechanisms to promote sustainable development such as through the Building Standards Service. As such, this proposal is not considered to raise any issues that conflict with the aims of policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 and Policy 2 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 3.9 Layout, Siting and Design Policy 14 - Design, quality and place of NPF4 advises that proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places (Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable, Adaptable). It confirms that proposals which are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the 6 qualities of place will not be supported. The site location, undeveloped ground outwith a settlement and along an unlit private access is not considered to be consistent with the qualities of either a sustainable or a connected place. As such. the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4. 3.10 NPF4 Policy 15 - Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods seeks to create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling, or using sustainable transport options. In this case access to amenities would rely on travelling a further distance to the nearest local facilities which is not the intention of this policy. The route for walking, wheeling or cycling is around 1300m into the centre of Douglas, the majority of which is on unlit roads with no pedestrian footway. 3.11 Policy 16 - Quality homes of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations. It advises that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan will only be supported in limited circumstances where:- i. the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and ii. the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods; iii. and either:- ♦ delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline; or ♦ the proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes; or ♦ the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary; or ♦ the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes In terms of Policy 16 of NPF4, the proposal does not comply with the criteria listed above, and therefore must also be deemed contrary to Policy 16. 3.12 Policy 5 Development Management and Policy DM1 New Development Design of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2), require that all planning applications should take fully into account the local context and built form in terms of layout, scale, massing, design and external materials. In relation to overlooking and loss of privacy, the proposed upper floor side window from the master bedroom would be located in excess of 10 metres from the adjacent side boundary at Edgewood. On 117
Page 118
balance given the size of the buildings, the separation distances and the juxtaposition of neighbouring properties it is considered that the proposed dwelling house would not have a significant or detrimental impact on neighbours in terms of overlooking that would merit refusal of the application. In addition, due to the orientation of the houses and the large size of the plot, it is considered that no unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring properties would occur that would justify refusal of the application. 3.13 Travel and Transport . Policy 15 - Travel and Transport of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2), requires all new development proposals to consider the resulting impacts of traffic growth. The impact of the proposal on the local road network has been fully assessed by Roads and Transportation Services who have offered no objections subject to conditions as detailed previously. The proposal can therefore be considered to comply with Policy 15 of the adopted LDP. Third party concerns relating to the condition of the access road and its accessibility is a civil issue between the owners/users of the road. 3.14 Other Matters Concerns have been expressed in relation to the impact on nature conservation area including badgers and natural ecosystems. Potentially the submission of an ecology report for the site could consider this however it would be unreasonable to request the applicant to provide this given that the principle of development is considered contrary to the Development Plan. 3.15 In relation to drainage/infrastructure it is noted that the proposal also involves the erection of a small bridge crossing over the existing burn ditch which would form part of the driveway. A proposed sewerage treatment is indicated on the proposed site plan within the curtilage of the application site. 3.16 Conclusion Careful consideration of this proposal has been undertaken including taking cognisance of the agent’s supporting statement and related information however it is considered that the proposal is an inappropriate form of development within the rural area and that it would be detrimental to the character and landscape setting of the area. 3.17 The proposed development fails to adhere to the provisions of National Planning Framework 4, with specific regard to Policies 14, 16 and 17. In addition, the proposal fails to comply with Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. As such, it is recommended that the application is refused. 4 Reason for decision 4.1 The proposed development is contrary to Policies 14, 16 and 17 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. There are no other material considerations which would justify the granting of planning permission. Delegating officer: David Russell Date: 4th October 2024 Previous references ♦ CL/14/0177 118
Page 119
List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 10.06.2024 ► Press advert dated 19.06.2024 ► Consultations The Coal Authority Planning And Local Authority Liaison 19.07.2024 Countryside And Greenspace 10.06.2024 Roads Development Management Team 25.06.2024 Environmental Services 21.08.2024 Scottish Water 14.06.2024 SP Energy Network 10.06.2024 ► Representations Dr Yvonne Davies, Edgewood, Douglas, Lanark, ML11 0RW, Dated: 24.06.2024 Mrs Hazel Gray, Scrogtonhead Farm, Douglas, Lanark, ML11 ORW, Dated: 16.07.2024 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Murray Reid, Planning officer, Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 07551840266 Email: murray.reid@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 119
Page 120
Planning Application Application number: P/24/0697 Reasons for refusal 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposal does not require to be located within the countryside. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 (Rural Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it does not meet the criteria listed in the policy for rural development and therefore fails to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and use the land around our towns and cities sustainably. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policies 16 (Quality homes) and 17 (Rural homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it does not constitute the delivery of high quality homes in the right locations as set out in the policy criteria nor would it support the resettlement of previously inhabited areas. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 14 Design, quality and place of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it is neither consistent with the qualities of a sustainable place nor with the qualities of a connected place. Reason(s) for decision The proposed development is contrary to Policies 14, 16 and 17 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. There are no other material considerations which would justify the granting of planning permission. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status 23_184_01_001 B 23_184_01-001 D 23_184_91_003 C 23_184_02_001 F 23_184_02_002 23_184_02_002_A Refused Refused Refused Refused Refused Refused 120
Page 121
Consultation Responses Response dated 10 June 2024 from Countryside and Greenspace Response dated 10 June 2024 from Scottish Power Response dated 13 June 2024 from Scottish Water Responses dated 18 June and 19 July 2024 from The Coal Authority Response dated 25 June 2024 from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Response dated 21 August 2024 from Environmental Services Appendix 2(b) 4c 121
Page 122
122
Page 123
From: Reid, Murray To: Planning Subject: FW: Braidlea Cottage P/24/0697 Date: 10 June 2024 13:09:10 Attachments: image002.png From: Thomson, Kerry <Kerry.Thomson@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Sent: 10 June 2024 11:33 To: Reid, Murray <Murray.Reid@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Braidlea Cottage P/24/0697 Hi Murray No comment in general about this application, apart to state that Core path CL/3345/1 should be kept open at all times. By looking at documents this would happen anyway as it is access for several residents on to Station Road. Thanks Kerry Kerry Thomson Access Development Officer Countryside and Greenspace Service Facilities, Grounds and Waste Services Community and Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council 18 Forrest Street BLANTYRE G72 0DT t: 07795 453442 kerry.thomson@southlanarkshire.gov.uk www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk Council Website: www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk Outdoor Access South Lanarkshire Core Path Network (navigable mapping) NOTE: This email and its contents are intended solely for the specified recipients and no part of it should be shared with others without the express permission of the author. 4c 123
Page 124
124
Page 125
SP Power Systems Limited Registered Office: Scottish Power HQ, 320 St Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5AD Registered in Scotland: SC215841 Information on the SP Energy Networks Data Privacy Policy can be found by using the following link https://www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/pages/privacy.aspx Planning & Regulatory Services Community and Enterprise Resources Floor 6 Council HQ Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA Date 10/06//2024 Dear Sirs, Proposal: P/24/0697 Site: Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW Our Ref: SPD J-01973 With reference to your application regarding the above project, in principle, SP Distribution Plc have no objection to the proposals, however, I would advise you that SP Distribution Plc have LV underground cables within the vicinity of the proposals. SP Distribution Plc must therefore reserve the right to protect and/or deviate our apparatus at the applicant’s expense. For a plan of the apparatus, please contact requestforplansscotland@spenergynetworks.co.uk For advice on working near our apparatus, please visit https://www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/pages/working_near_our_network.aspx or contact customer.resolution@spenergynetworks.co.uk Yours faithfully C Burrows Land & Planning Clerical Assistant 125
Page 126
SW Public General Thursday, 13 June 2024 Local Planner Planning & Economic Development Community & Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council Hamilton ML3 8RE Dear Customer, Braidlea, Douglas, Lanark, ML11 0RW Planning Ref: P/24/0697 Our Ref: DSCAS-0111754-YR4 Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Please quote our reference in all future correspondence Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. The applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. Please read the following carefully as there may be further action required. Scottish Water would advise the following: Water Capacity Assessment • There is currently sufficient capacity in the Daer 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 • According to our records there is no public waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of this proposed development therefore we would advise applicant to investigate private treatment options. Development Operations The Bridge Buchanan Gate Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6FB Development Operations Freephone Number - 0800 3890379 E-Mail - DevelopmentOperations@scottishwater.co.uk www.scottishwater.co.uk 126
Page 127
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. When planning permission has been granted and a formal connection application has been submitted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. Surface Water For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges. In order to avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to our combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should refer to our guides which can be found at https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/Help-and-Resources/Document-Hub/Business-and- Developers/Connecting-to-Our-Network which detail our policy and processes to support the application process, evidence to support the intended drainage plan should be submitted at the technical application stage where we will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. Next Steps: Single house developments, unless utilising private water or drainage sources, are required to submit a Water Connection Application and Waste Water Application via our Customer Portal to allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Please note that Single House developments are not required to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry form (PDE) however local network capacity will be assessed on receipt of application forms. Further information on our application and connection process for Single Household development can be found on our website https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/Business- and-Developers/NEW-Connecting-to-Our-Network/Single-Household-Customers I trust the above is acceptable however if you require any further information regarding this matter, please contact me on 0800 389 0379 or via the e-mail address below or at planningconsultations@scottishwater.co.uk. Yours sincerely, Angela Allison Development Services Analyst PlanningConsultations@scottishwater.co.uk 127
Page 128
SW Public General Scottish Water Disclaimer: “It is important to note that the information on any such plan provided on Scottish Water’s infrastructure, is for indicative purposes only and its accuracy cannot be relied upon. When the exact location and the nature of the infrastructure on the plan is a material requirement then you should undertake an appropriate site investigation to confirm its actual position in the ground and to determine if it is suitable for its intended purpose. By using the plan you agree that Scottish Water will not be liable for any loss, damage or costs caused by relying upon it or from carrying out any such site investigation." Supplementary Guidance • Scottish Water asset plans can be obtained from our appointed asset plan providers: • Site Investigation Services (UK) Ltd • Tel: 0333 123 1223 • Email: sw@sisplan.co.uk • www.sisplan.co.uk • Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements to be installed, subject to compliance with Water Byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area, then they should write to the Development Operations department at the above address. • If the connection to the public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. • Scottish Water may only vest new water or waste water infrastructure which is to be laid through land out with public ownership where a Deed of Servitude has been obtained in our favour by the developer. • The developer should also be aware that Scottish Water requires land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed. • Please find information on how to submit application to Scottish Water at our Customer Portal 128
Page 129
200 Lichfield Lane Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG T: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries) E: planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk W: www.gov.uk/coalauthority For the attention of: Murray Reid – Case Officer South Lanarkshire Council [By email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk] 18 June 2024 Dear Murray Re: P/24/0697 Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works; Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark, ML11 0RW Thank you for your notification of 10 June 2024 seeking the views of the Coal Authority on the above. The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas. The Coal Authority Response: Fundamental Concern I have reviewed the proposals and confirm that the application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area. The Coal Authority records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards, which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application, specifically actual shallow coalmine workings. 129
Page 130
Voids and broken/disturbed ground associated with such workings can pose a risk of ground instability and may give rise to the emission of mine gases. The Coal Authority objects to this planning application, as a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report has not been submitted as part of the application. It is a requirement of Policy 9 (c) of NPF4 that the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the LPA that the application site is safe, stable and suitable for development. The Coal Authority Recommendation to the LPA In accordance with the agreed risk-based approach to development management in Development High Risk Areas, the applicant should be informed that they need to submit a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report as part of this application. Without such an assessment of any risks to the development proposal posed by past coal mining activity, based on up-to-date coal mining information, the Coal Authority does not consider that the LPA has sufficient information to determine this planning application and therefore objects to this proposal. The Coal Authority would be very pleased to receive for further consultation and comment any subsequent Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report which is submitted in support of this planning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Yours sincerely Chris MacArthur Chris MacArthur B.Sc. (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager General Information for the Applicant The Coal Mining Risk Assessment needs to interpret the coal mining risks and should be based on and add to up-to-date information of past coal mining activities in relation to the application site. Coal Mining Reports are available from www.groundstability.com or by telephoning 0845 762 6848. 130
Page 131
This coal mining information should then be used to assess whether or not past mining activity poses any risk to the development proposal and, where necessary, propose mitigation measures to address any issues of land instability. This could include further intrusive investigation on site to ensure that the Local Planning Authority has sufficient information to determine the planning application. The Coal Mining Risk Assessment should be prepared by a “competent body”. Links to the relevant professional institutions of competent bodies can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/planning-applications-coal-mining-risk-assessments Under the Coal Industry Act 1994 any intrusive activities, including initial site investigation boreholes, and/or any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings/coal mine entries for ground stability purposes require the prior written permission of The Coal Authority, since such activities can have serious public health and safety implications. Failure to obtain permission will result in trespass, with the potential for court action. In the event that you are proposing to undertake such work in the Forest of Dean local authority area our permission may not be required; it is recommended that you check with us prior to commencing any works. Application forms for Coal Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Coal Authority’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/get-a-permit-to-deal-with-a-coal-mine-on-your-property Disclaimer The above consultation response is provided by The Coal Authority as a Statutory Consultee and is based upon the latest available coal mining data on the date of the response, and electronic consultation records held by The Coal Authority since 1 April 2013. The comments made are also based upon only the information provided to The Coal Authority by the Local Planning Authority and/or has been published on the Council's website for consultation purposes in relation to this specific planning application. The views and conclusions contained in this response may be subject to review and amendment by The Coal Authority if additional or new data/information (such as a revised Coal Mining Risk Assessment) is provided by the Local Planning Authority or the Applicant for consultation purposes. 131
Page 132
200 Lichfield Lane Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG T: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries) E: planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk W: www.gov.uk/coalauthority For the attention of: Murray Reid – Case Officer South Lanarkshire Council [By email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk] 19 July 2024 Dear Murray Re: P/24/0697 Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works; Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark, ML11 0RW - RECONSULTATION Thank you for your notification of 18 July 2024 seeking the further views of the Coal Authority on the above. The Coal Authority response: Material Consideration The application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area. The Coal Authority records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards, which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application, specifically actual shallow coalmine workings. Voids and broken/disturbed ground associated with such workings can pose a risk of ground instability and may give rise to the emission of mine gases. The Coal Authority previously objected to this planning application, as a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report had not been submitted as part of the application. 132
Page 133
The Coal Authority now notes the submitted Mining Risk Assessment Report, dated 9 April 2014 and prepared by Simpson Mining & Geotechnical Ltd, which accompanies this planning application. The Mining Risk Assessment Report correctly identified that the site has been subject to past coal mining activity. The report has been informed by an appropriate range of sources of information including; geological maps and coal mine abandonment plans. Section 14 of the report comments that there are no records of the Douglass Coal having been worked beneath the site but in the event that there are unrecorded mine workings in this seam there is sufficient rock cover over these to ensure stability. Having reviewed the available information Section 15 of the report concludes that there is no risk to the stability of the site from coal mining legacy that on this basis no special precautions are necessary in the design of the foundations. The Coal Authority Recommendation to the LPA The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the Mining Risk Assessment Report are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. The Coal Authority therefore withdraws its objection to the proposed development. However, further more detailed considerations of ground conditions and/or foundation design may be required as part of any subsequent building warrant application. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Yours sincerely Chris MacArthur Chris MacArthur B.Sc.(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager Disclaimer The above consultation response is provided by The Coal Authority as a Statutory Consultee and is based upon the latest available data on the date of the response, and electronic consultation records held by The Coal Authority since 1 April 2013. The comments made are also based upon only the information provided to The Coal Authority by the Local Planning Authority and/or has been published on the Council's website for 133
Page 134
consultation purposes in relation to this specific planning application. The views and conclusions contained in this response may be subject to review and amendment by The Coal Authority if additional or new data/information (such as a revised Coal Mining Risk Assessment) is provided by the Local Planning Authority or the Applicant for consultation purposes. In formulating this response The Coal Authority has taken full account of the professional conclusions reached by the competent person who has prepared the Coal Mining Risk Assessment or other similar report. In the event that any future claim for liability arises in relation to this development The Coal Authority will take full account of the views, conclusions and mitigation previously expressed by the professional advisers for this development in relation to ground conditions and the acceptability of development. 134
Page 135
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@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Memo To: Planning Our ref: P/24/0697 Your ref: Murray Reid If calling ask for: Craig Lattimer Phone: 07825583972 cc: Date: 25th June 2024 From: Stuart Laird Engineering Manager P/24/0697 - Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW I refer to the application dated 5 June 2024, received in this office 11 June 2024. This application is for the erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works at Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas, Lanark. Access is proposed to be taken from an existing private access served from Scrogton Road, Douglas. This application site is approximately 1500m from the town centre amenities. The access is unbound and has no street lighting and residents would be reliant on their car. EVCP should be provided. Should Planning and Regulatory Services be minded to approve the application, we would recommend the following conditions: - 3 car park spaces in modules of 3m x 6m should be provided. There is adequate space within the site to accommodate these spaces. It is noted from a site visit and plans that there is a burn that runs through the proposed front garden of the site. It is also noted that Flood Risk Management have been consulted and should comment upon any design requirements. ACO drain or equivalent should be installed where the proposed driveway meets the private access to prevent water issuing onto the road. Stuart Laird Engineering Manager 135
Page 136
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning and Regulatory Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: 07795 090342 Email: kenny.joyes@southlanarkshire.gov.uk To: Planning & Building Standards Services Our Ref. KGJ/510098 Your Ref. P/24/0697 If Calling Ask for Kenny Joyes CC: Phone 07795 090342 From: Kenny Joyes Date. 21 August 2024 Subject: Application Ref: P/24/0697 Address: Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark Proposed Development: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works I refer to the above planning application consultation and would comment as follows; I have no objections to the proposal subject to the following conditions; 1.0 Proposed Housing - Noise The housing developer shall ensure that (prior to the development becoming occupied) the neighbourhood noise levels comply with the following- Part 1 The internal noise levels shall comply with BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings as follows- a) The internal levels with windows open do not exceed an LAeq,16hr of 40dB daytime (07:00 – 23:00) b) The internal levels with windows open do not exceed an LAeq,8hr of 30dB night-time (23:00 – 07:00). c) The internal levels with windows open do not exceed an LAmax of 45dB night-time (23:00 – 07:00). d) The external levels shall not exceed an LAeq,16hr of 55dB daytime in any garden amenity areas, when measured free-field 136
Page 137
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning and Regulatory Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: 07795 090342 Email: kenny.joyes@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Part 2 The Internal Noise Rating Values, within the residential property and resultant from the neighbourhood (industrial and commercial) and neighbour noise (installed services), shall not exceed- • NR25 between 23.00hrs and 08.00hrs • NR35 between 08.00hrs and 23.00hrs Part 3 The residential development shall not bring into breach the cumulative day and nighttime noise emissions from any currently consented Wind Turbine or Wind Farm development(s) operating within their currently consented noise limits. Based on the proximity to other noise assessment areas any complaints shall be measured at previously established noise sensitive receptors in accordance with the ETSU-R-97 protocol. 2.0 Restrictions on times for audible construction noise. The applicant shall further ensure that audible construction activities shall be limited to, Monday to Friday 8.00am to 7.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 1.00pm and Sunday – No audible activity. No audible activity shall take place during local and national bank holidays - without the prior written approval of the planning authority. Under exceptional conditions the above time restrictions may be further varied subject to written agreement with the council as Planning Authority. The applicant shall ensure that all works are carried in accordance with the current BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014, ‘Noise control on construction and open sites’. The area would be considered under category A of the ABC assessment method. Noise levels generated by site activities shall not exceed the total noise (pre-construction ambient plus, site noise) by 5 dB or more of the pre-construction ambient noise, subject to lower cut-off values of 65dB. 3.0 Residential Waste Control Details of facilities for the storage of refuse within the proposed development, including the design, location and access for uplift, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the facilities for the storage of waste have been provided within the proposed development, in accordance with the approved scheme. 137
Page 138
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning and Regulatory Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: 07795 090342 Email: kenny.joyes@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 4.0. Water Supply Prior to the development becoming occupied confirmation that the residence will connected to the Public Mains Supply shall be provided. Where it is proposed to utilise a private water supply as either a source of drinking water or for the production of food, the applicant shall submit an assessment for the proposed water supply to satisfy the Council, as Planning Authority that the supply will be sufficient and wholesome for its intended purpose. The report shall include, as a minimum, the following information: • Confirmation of the location, type and source of supply • A ‘Risk Assessment’ within the meaning of the Water Intended for Human Consumption (Private Supplies)(Scotland) Regulations 2017 to determine the suitability of the supply for its intended purpose • Seasonal flow rates for the proposed supply to confirm that a sufficient quantity of wholesome water can be delivered to the development Should you require any further information, please contact Kenny Joyes. Kenny Joyes Environmental Health Officer 138
Page 139
Representations Representation From Dr Yvonne Davies Mrs Hazel Gray Appendix 2(c) 4d 139
Page 140
140
Page 141
Comments for Planning Application P/24/0697 Application Summary Application Number: P/24/0697 Address: Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Case Officer: Murray Reid Customer Details Name: Dr Yvonne Davies Address: Edgewood Douglas Lanark Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Dear Mr Murray Reid Thank you for your Neighbour Notification Notice for the proposed build at Braidlea Cottage. We have read through the plans and unfortunately, we cannot support this application and are objecting to the proposed build. We believe we have grounds to object based on South Lanarkshire planning recommendations, which we have listed below: 1. Policies and Proposals in the Local Development Plan / Strategic Development Plan Although there was planning approved in principle for a smaller site at Braidlea Cottage in 2014, the paperwork was never completed and therefore the planning approval period expired. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the local authority's development plan. With this in mind, we were delighted to support South Lanarkshire Council with their local development plan which highlights the importance of protecting the green belt. South Lanarkshire Council used our house (Edgewood) along with our neighbour's house (Braidlea) to demonstrate where a "Gap Sight" does not and should not be applied to rural properties planning applications with respect to the green belt. I refer you to Chapter 3 page 24 of the South Lanarkshire Development Plan, Volume 2. You will see the photograph of our houses which we supported use of. In particular, I draw your 4d 141
Page 142
attention to Clause 3.16: "The development of gap sites will not normally be acceptable in locations characterised by a scattering of houses or outbuildings/other buildings in the open countryside or where the development would result in the extension of an existing ribbon form of development or contribute to coalescence with another building group." This describes the setting we live in and why the "Gap Site" rule should not be used to grant planning permission for the proposed build. We chose to live in a rural setting because we love the green space around us. If we wanted to live with a house directly beside us, we would live in the village or buy a house in a Town or City. This is why we fully support South Lanarkshire's Development Plan of not using the same "Gap Site" rule for the countryside as they do for built up areas. Therefore, we believe the proposed build at Braidlea Cottage would contradict South Lanarkshire Council's Development Plan and The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, thus the planning application should be denied. 2. Overlooking / Loss of Privacy Moreover, the proposed house build will result in our home being overlooked. As you can see from the picture used in the South Lanarkshire Development Plan Vol 2, we have complete privacy and are not overlooked. Parallel to the proposed build site, we have an 8 ft by 6ft window at the side of our house. This will result in us losing a massive amount of privacy. Also, on this side of our home, we have office, bedroom and living room windows and again we will lose privacy to our home. In addition to loss of privacy to our home, the proposed build will also overlook our garden. We have built an extensive outdoor space that allows us to enjoy the beautiful surroundings and if a house gets built in the paddock we will be overlooked and no longer have the peace and privacy in our home or garden. 3. Loss of light / Overshadowing Our house was designed to allow nature to be part of the house and as such we have a lot of windows in our property. As mentioned previously, the side running parallel to the proposed build site, has windows to our living room, a bedroom and office space. The sun provides beautiful, natural light into our home from the direction of the development site. We also have an 8 ft by 6ft window at the side of our house that provides natural light to the downstairs as well as the top level of our house and is key to the open planned feel of our home. The proposed build will shadow our home and impact the access to natural light within our home. With regards to our garden, as well as the loss of privacy, we will also have significant overshadowing due to the proposed house build. 4. Noise and Disturbance If planning goes ahead, there is going to be significant noise and disturbance. The tranquillity and peace around our home will be lost with the significant building works. We also have home offices 142
Page 143
which will make working practically impossible due to the noise and disturbance of the development. If the development is built, this will create on-going noise like living in a built-up area since we will have a house right beside us. 5. Nature Conservation As well as deer, hares, foxes and pheasants, there is a significant badger population in this area. We have them in our garden and in the fields around our home. We have also seen them in the paddock of the proposed build site. It should be considered that their habitat could be affected by the proposed build. 6. Traffic Generation There is already significant traffic on the farm track that provides access to this area. The track is constantly needing to be repaired and is a real problem. If there is another house built the dirt track will be under even more pressure from additional building vehicles and cars. Due to the concern of traffic generation, within our Title Deeds, there is a clause that prevents another house being built at this site. This was agreed between the owners of Braidlea and the person who owned the house before us, Mr Keith Burrell. The reason for this is five scattered houses in this small area is the maximum the infrastructure can cope with. 7. Drainage / Infrastructure The infrastructure was raised as a concern back in 2014 by Mr Keith Burrell in his objection on 19th May 2014. We echo these concerns 10 years on. In particular, the development would require crossing a water course which SEPA strongly object to and of course the access track is not suitable for another development. Mr Burrell's original objection can be found here: https://publicaccess.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/online- applications/files/D6BF3516DF18838F6B1172F79E8609EB/pdf/CL_14_0177-R_- _Representation_-_Keith_Burrell-3211303.pdf In addition, the burn that runs through our property is already heavily polluted with septic discharge from the properties in the small area. Having yet another septic tank discharging into the burn will make the algal growth and smell in the summer even worse. 8. Government Policy We refer you to The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan as discussed previously. South Lanarkshire Council's development plan clearly states the green belt and rural properties should be protected from the "gap site" rule and our houses were used to illustrate this. 143
Page 144
If this application is granted, South Lanarkshire Council are not following the recommendations from Government Policy or their own Development Plan. Therefore, the application must be denied. In summary, it is with regret that we must object to the proposed development at Braidlea Cottage. We trust South Lanarkshire Council will take into consideration the points we have made and deny the application. Best regards Dr Yvonne Davies 144
Page 145
Comments for Planning Application P/24/0697 Application Summary Application Number: P/24/0697 Address: Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Case Officer: Murray Reid Customer Details Name: Mrs Hazel Gray Address: Scrogtonhead Farm Douglas Lanark Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:To whom this may concern, On reading and hearing about plans for the above new build, we will not be in support of this planning application for the following reasons. 1 we are farmers of the surrounding area of land and therefore access the fields closeby the application address ie Braidlea Cottage. The fields are part of Scrogton Farm, which is further up Station Road. Our fields along with several houses and the field in question for planning are all accessed by a single farm track. The track itself is a dirt track requiring alot of maintenance to keep it in runnable condition. Due to the weather of late it is harder to keep up as it needs to be clear of water in potholes in order for it to last. The increased volume of traffic already using it causes alot of wear on it and yet another house will make the problem even worse. 2 if this application goes ahead the noise generated by a builders yard will have a heavy impact on our livestock, which can be easily startled with unexpected banging and clattering created by vehicles and machinery. We also need access along the road at all times to move and check on our livestock, namely cattle and sheep on a daily basis. They also need to be moved along the track for routine veterinary treatments etc back at the farm , which means the track must be clear of stationary vehicles at ALL times. 3 The affect on natural ecosystems in the green belt between Braidlea Cottage and Edgewood is also a major concern and would be damaged forever. There is alot of wildlife in this area which is home to badgers, deer, hares, rabbits and pheasants, naming just a few. There are also badgers sets in this area which are illegal to disturb. 145
Page 146
We trust that you, South Lanarkshire Council take these points on board with your decision. Best regards Hazel Gray 146
Page 147
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 4e 147
Page 148
148
Page 149
Photo 1 looking northwest 4e 149
Page 150
Photo 2 looking northwest 150
Page 151
Photo 3 looking west 151
Page 152
Photo 4 looking southwest 152
Page 153
Photo 5 looking northwest 153
Page 154
154
Page 155
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 4f 155
Page 156
156
Page 157
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email murray.reid@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07551840266 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Matthew O'Neill Thomson Hunter Associates 21 Portland Road Kilmarnock KA1 2BT Our Ref: P/24/0697 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Murray Reid Date: 11 October 2024 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Site address: Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark, ML11 0RW, Application no: P/24/0697 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 Murray Reid on 07551840266 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 4f 157
Page 158
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr Bob Guy Per: Matthew O'Neill 334 Glasgow Road, Blantyre, G72 9LQ, 21 Portland Road, Kilmarnock, KA1 2BT, With reference to your application received on 04.06.2024 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Site location: Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark, ML11 0RW, SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the above development in accordance with the plan(s) specified in this decision notice and the particulars given in the application, for the reason(s) listed overleaf in the paper apart. Date: 11th 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/24/0697 158
Page 159
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/24/0697 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal is contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposal does not require to be located within the countryside. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 (Rural Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it does not meet the criteria listed in the policy for rural development and therefore fails to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and use the land around our towns and cities sustainably. 03. The proposal is contrary to Policies 16 (Quality homes) and 17 (Rural homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it does not constitute the delivery of high quality homes in the right locations as set out in the policy criteria nor would it support the resettlement of previously inhabited areas. 04. The proposal is contrary to Policy 14 Design, quality and place of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it is neither consistent with the qualities of a sustainable place nor with the qualities of a connected place. Reason(s) for decision The proposed development is contrary to Policies 14, 16 and 17 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. There are no other material considerations which would justify the granting of planning permission. 159
Page 160
Notes to applicant Application number: P/24/0697 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 23_184_01_001 B Refused 23_184_01-001 D Refused 23_184_91_003 C Refused 23_184_02_001 F Refused 23_184_02_002 Refused 23_184_02_002_A Refused 160
Page 161
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. 161
Page 162
162
Page 163
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant Mr Bob Guy Appendix 5 4g 163
Page 164
164
Page 165
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 100693541-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Gillian Baillie Planning Limited Gillian Baillie 14 Prestwick Wynd 14 KA10 7GH United Kingdom Troon gillian@gbplanning.co.uk 4g 165
Page 166
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr BRAIDLEA COTTAGE Bob South Lanarkshire Council Guy BRAIDLEA Glasgow Road DOUGLAS WEST 334 LANARK ML11 0RW G72 9LQ UK 630966 Blantyre 283053 166
Page 167
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unl kely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works See attached "Statement of Reasons for Review" submitted on behalf of the applicant. In summary it is the applicant's position that the Council officials have not interpreted the full terms of the development plan (NPF4 and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2) or given weight to the material consideration that planning permission has previously been granted for a house at the same location. 167
Page 168
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 If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) Statement of Reasons for Review; Plans and Drawings submitted with application P/24/0697; Planning Statement submitted for application P/24/0697; Decision Notice P/24/0697; Officer's Report of Handling for P/24/0697; Site photographs dated 4th November 2024; Plans, Delegated Report and Decision Notice for previous planning permission CL/14/0177; Planning Appeal PPA/380/2100 Decision Notice for Woodend, Mousebank Road, Lanark on 12th December 2023. P/24/0697 11/10/2024 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates N/A - the access road is privately owned with the applicant having right of access. There are no restrictions on access. 04/06/2024 A site inspection is recommended for the Local Review Body to identify the former kennels use of the site, its gap site relationship with neighbouring properties, and its proximity to the village of Douglas. 168
Page 169
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: Mrs Gillian Baillie Declaration Date: 20/12/2024 169
Page 170
Statement of Reasons for Review Erection of detached dwellinghouse, garage and associated works at: Braidlea, Scrogton Road Douglas, West Lanark ML11 0RW SLC Planning Reference P/24/0697 December 2024 170
Page 171
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 2 Overview This statement sets out the reasons for requesting a review by the Council’s Local Review Body (LRB) of the decision to refuse planning permission for a new residential dwelling on a rural gap site at Braidlea, Douglas (Application Reference P/24/0697). Mr and Mrs Guy purchased the plot in 2022, with planning permission for a single dwellinghouse previously granted in 2014. They have invested their savings with the intention of building a family home and making their life at Douglas, following retirement from public service. They sought advice from planning officials prior to purchasing the plot, and were advised in 2022 that whilst it appeared that the previous permission may have lapsed, there were no known significant changes that would likely preclude planning permission being granted for a fresh proposal on the same site. Whilst appreciating that this advice was informal, it was relied upon in good faith. Mr and Mrs Guy are extremely disappointed that planning permission has now been refused as being contrary to policies on rural housing in National Planning Framework 4 (which was first published in draft in 2021, prior to the pre-application advice) and the current adopted local development plan for South Lanarkshire. It is submitted that this delegated decision is flawed because: • It has not taken into account the full terms of the development plan, or fully considered material considerations including the planning permission for a house on the site which lends significant support to the characteristics of the site being suitable for residential use. • It has unduly disregarded the Council’s adopted policies in the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 which provide support for the development; an image of the application site is used in the SLLDP2 as an example of a rural gap site for housing (see Figures 2 and 3 – page 10). It is the applicant’s strong view, which is supported by recent decisions by the Scottish Government on appeal and other decisions taken by South Lanarkshire Council that the terms of the SLLDP2 are compatible with NPF4 on meeting rural housing need and guiding development to the right places, and that the development of a house at Braidlea accords with the development plan when these are read together. Mr and Mrs Guy intend to bring new investment, housing opportunity and rural revitalisation to Douglas having committed their life savings to building their family home on the site. Having between them worked for over 60 years in front line public service they now respectfully appeal to the Local Review Body in exercise of their public service to take a holistic approach as intended and encouraged by both the Local Development Plan 2 and NPF4, with the Scottish Government Chief Planner’s guidance that; “Application of planning judgement to the circumstances of an individual situation remains essential to all decision making, informed by principles of proportionality and reasonableness”. 171
Page 172
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 3 Reasons for Review 1. The decision has failed to have regard to the development plan for its full terms (See Section 2.1). a. National Planning Framework 4 and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 are supportive of rural housing on gap sites and consolidating existing groupings, when the full terms are read together which decision makers are required to do. The aims and objectives of policies should be taken into account and not just individual criteria in a policy. Both plans support high quality, small- scale proposals for rural homes in the ‘right places’ where they are appropriate in land use terms and are in-keeping with the rural character. The proposed development of a brownfield gap site close to village services will support these aims. b. Scottish Government guidance is that rural development policies in NPF4 are intended to be applied flexibly and with positive intent. The revitalisation of rural Scotland is a key outcome of NPF4, and the proposal will make a positive contribution to the local area. The ‘checklist’ assessment of the proposal against individual criteria in policies has not taken account of this positive intent to allow for revitalisation of rural areas. c. NPF4 and SLLDP2 are compatible on rural housing policy. This was a key finding of the Scottish Government appointed Senior Reporter in the 2023 appeal decision to grant planning permission for a house at Woodend, Mousebank Road, Lanark (SLC Ref P/22/1096). NPF4 allows for Local Development Plans to provide additional policies which address local issues, including local solutions to meeting rural housing need. 2. The decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of Policies 16 and 17 of NPF4 is flawed. The application is supported by NPF4 Policies 16 and 17 for the reasons set out below (See Section 2.2): a. The scale, siting and design of the proposed house is in-keeping with the character of the area and will consolidate an established rural grouping. The development complies with part (a) of Policy 17 of NPF4. b. It is a brownfield site which was formerly a significant kennel complex (See Figures 4 and 5 on pages 11-12). Elements of the kennels remain on site in the form of engineered groundworks, foundations and associated works. It has poor soil conditions which will require intervention to improve its biodiversity value and quality. The development also complies with Policy 17(a)(ii) to reuse brownfield land where a return to a natural state will not happen without intervention. The quality of the limited re-naturalisation on the site is very poor (see Appendix A Photographs). c. NPF4 requires local development plans to set out locally “tailored approaches to rural housing”. SLLDP2 policies support small scale rural housing proposals in sustainable locations such as gap sites and consolidation of existing housing groups. This approach provides a solution to rural housing demand which also protects the character and quality of the countryside – this is a locally tailored approach consistent with the requirement of NPF4. The application complies 172
Page 173
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 4 with these policies and particularly GBRA8 as a suitable gap site and GBRA9 to consolidate an existing grouping. d. The proposal is for a self-build home which is identified in Policy 16 as a means of improving choice and addressing gaps in local provision. It is a gap site which is consistent with development plan policies on rural housing, and is able to support local living given its close proximity to the village of Douglas. It is therefore consistent with NPF4 Policy 16. 3. The decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of SLLDP2 Policy 4 on development in rural areas is flawed for the following reasons (See Section 2.3): a. Policy 4 is intended to be read with the Volume 2 Policies including Policy GBRA8 on Gap Sites and GBRA9 on Existing Building Groups. The application finds clear support in these policies. The site is presented by the Council as a good example of a rural development gap site in SLLDP2 (see Figures 2 and 3 – page 10). The previous decision to grant planning permission was based on these characteristics which have not changed. b. The Report of Handling mis-quotes policy 4 by stating that “Development which does not require to be located in the countryside will be required to be accommodated within existing settlements.” Policy 4 does not state this – it states that such development would be “expected” to be accommodated within settlements. It is not an absolute requirement, and the GBRA Policies provide guidance on other forms of small-scale local development which do not damage the character of an existing group or the wider countryside. An unreasonably restrictive interpretation of this policy has been made in the decision. c. It is not required that developments which comply with Policies GBRA8 and GBRA9 must also demonstrate a specific locational need. Policy 4 supports “small scale development in the right places that is appropriate in land use terms and is of high environmental quality that will support the needs of communities”. The GBRA policies are the policies which guide rural development to “the right places”. The reasoned justification for Policy GBRA8 provides that such development can be acceptable. d. It is a small-scale development which is not isolated or sporadic, and which will improve the condition of a former brownfield site and creates no additional burden on existing community services or infrastructure. 4. The decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of Policy 14 of NPF4 is not appropriate (See Section 2.4). The application is consistent with the sustainable and connected qualities of place set out in NPF4 Policy 14, as applied in a rural setting: a. It is a sustainable location, very close to the outskirts of the village of Douglas with existing walking links (see Figure 9, page 25). b. Scottish Government guidance is that the principles of ‘local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods’ as set out in NPF4 Policy 15 should be applied flexibly, particularly in a rural context. No flexibility for the rural circumstances has been applied in the official’s assessment; rather they have applied an assessment of walking distance and access to services which is more relevant to an urbanised area. c. It is not reasonable, proportionate or consistent with Scottish Government guidance to refuse an application for a single house in a rural area because the 173
Page 174
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 5 road access and walking routes are also of rural character. The Council’s Roads Service has not offered any objection to the proposal in terms of accessibility or safety. 5. The decision has failed to give any weight to the material consideration that planning permission CL/14/0177 was granted in 2014 for a house of similar scale on the site, and that works to implement that consent had been initiated. The reasons for the Council granting planning permission on this gap site (that it will integrate well with the existing buildings and consolidate the grouping) are still relevant under current development plan policy and should have been given weight as a material consideration (See Section 3). 174
Page 175
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 6 Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Purpose of Statement ............................................................................................. 7 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Site Description ...................................................................................................... 9 1.4 The Proposed Development .................................................................................. 15 2.0 Reasons for Review .................................................................................................. 15 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Housing Policies in NPF4 and Brownfield Status .................................................... 18 2.3 SLLDP2 Policies on Rural Areas ............................................................................. 22 2.4 Local Living and Connectivity ................................................................................ 26 3.0 Planning History ....................................................................................................... 29 4.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A – Site Photographs Appendix B – Applicant’s records of pre-purchase correspondence with SLC Planning Gillian Baillie Planning Limited is a limited company registered in Scotland 14 Prestwick Wynd, Troon KA10 7GH Company No. SC778743 VAT Registration No 452 0013 51 175
Page 176
176
Page 177
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 8 Authority, Scottish Water and Scottish Power (all of which proved positive and supportive of a new application) Mr and Mrs Guy purchased the application site in early 2023. 1.2.2 During pre-purchase discussions with SLC Planning no mention or reference was made to Mr and Mrs Guy of the imminent arrival of NPF4 or any restrictive view they had on development in the rural area in terms of South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) policy 4 (see Appendix B). 1.2.3 A planning application was submitted to South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) in June 2024 by Thomson Hunter Associates for Mr and Mrs Guy (SLC Reference P/24/0697). This application was for the erection of a dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works. 1.2.4 Following submission of this planning application in 2024, Thomson Hunter Associates received correspondence from SLC Planning confirming that there was no clear evidence that the 2014 permission remains extant, as they could find no records of pre-commencement conditions being discharged prior to a Notice of Initiation of Development being submitted and that in their opinion the 2014 permission had therefore expired in 2017. SLC Planning also advised that the new application was in their opinion not consistent with the current development plan and in particular policy 17 in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) relevant to housing in rural areas and was therefore likely to be recommended for refusal. 1.2.5 On 29th August 2024, the case officer further emailed Thomson Hunter Associates to advise the application was provisionally scheduled to be determined by the Planning Committee on 24th September 2024 with an officer recommendation for refusal. 1.2.6 Mr and Mrs Guy commissioned Gillian Baillie Planning Limited to review the application and undertake a planning policy appraisal and prepare a planning statement. This was submitted to SLC Planning on Thursday 26th September 2024 (SLC Planning had agreed to a request to remove the application from the September committee agenda to allow further supporting information to be provided). 1.2.7 The planning statement explained that when both parts of the development plan are read together, the application is supported by policies guiding development in rural areas. The adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) is not incompatible with NPF4 on planning for housing in rural areas. 1.2.8 The planning application was refused by South Lanarkshire Council on 11th October 2024 under delegated powers, with the official’s assessment provided in a Report of Handling dated 1st October 2024 (only three working days after submission of the detailed planning statement). The Report of Handling stated in paragraph 1.4 that “a supporting statement has been submitted which in summary considers that the site complies with NPF4 and SLLDP2 Policies” and in paragraph 3.16 that “Careful consideration of this proposal has been undertaken including taking cognisance of the agent’s supporting statement and information however it is considered that the proposal is an inappropriate form of development to the character and landscape setting of the area”. No other references, or response to, the matters on compatibility of policies discussed in the planning statement is made. It is not explained in any way how planning officials had considered the points made, or why they had discounted the assessment in the planning statement. 177
Page 178
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 9 1.2.9 The reasons for refusal in the decision notice are: • 01 – “The proposal is contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposal does not require to be located within the countryside.” See Reason for Review No. 3 • 02 – “The proposal is contrary to Policy 17 (Rural Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it does not meet the criteria listed in the policy for rural development and therefore fails to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and use the land around our towns and cities sustainably.” See Reason for Review No.2 • 03 – “The proposal is contrary to Policies 16 (Quality homes) and 17 (Rural homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it does not constitute the delivery of high quality homes in the right locations as set out in the policy criteria nor would it support the resettlement of previously inhabited areas.” See Reason for Review No.2 • 04 – “The proposal is contrary to Policy 14 Design, quality and place of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it is neither consistent with the qualities of a sustainable place nor with the qualities of a connected place.” See Reason for Review No.4 1.3 Site Description 1.3.1 The application site is a vacant, previously developed brownfield site situated approximately 400m from the village of Douglas, South Lanarkshire. The site is a recognised Gap Site in the Rural Area, as defined by South Lanarkshire Council in its local development plan. There is a previous planning permission for a single domestic dwellinghouse on the site. The site area is under 0.3ha and is predominantly grassed. It was previously part of the property of Braidlea but has been sold separately following the 2014 grant of planning permission. The grazing area to the rear (north-west) of the site remains in the ownership of Braidlea. 1.3.2 A minor watercourse, Broadlea Burn, traverses the southern boundary of the site before intersecting it in a north-easterly direction. The site is relatively flat at the front (south-east), with a gentle slope up at the rear, where the adjacent land to the north- west rises more steeply up the hillside with a woodland backdrop. 1.3.3 There are several houses around the edge of the site, none of which are linked to agricultural or rural business use. The site is situated between Braidlea to the south (a traditional stone building which is understood originally to be the gamekeeper’s cottage for Douglas Estate), and Edgewood to the north (a modern detached dwellinghouse constructed in 2012). To the south-east of the site, there is a traditional Steading property which was rebuilt from ruinous condition and converted into three residential units circa 1997. Figure 1 is an annotated image showing the site in the context of the surrounding properties. 178
Page 179
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 10 Figure 1: Aerial image looking towards the application site, date unknown (annotated by the applicant from sale marketing materials). 1.3.4 The site is accessed off Station Road via a private road which is maintained by the property owners (which the owners of the application site also have responsibility for contributing towards). This is the main vehicular and pedestrian access between the existing houses and Douglas, at approximately 1km distance. There is also a walking route to the village travelling north along the private road and then heading east across the Douglas Water to the northern edge of the village (also approximately 1km distance). 1.3.5 The site is within a rural area as designated in the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. It is notable that the site has been presented for many years by the Council in SLLDP2 as an example of a rural gap site suitable for development – firstly in the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance 2 “Green Belt and the Rural Area” associated with the previous LDP, and now in the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. This is illustrated in the extracts in Figures 2 and 3 overleaf. 179
Page 180
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 11 Figure 2: Extract of South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Guidance 2: Green Belt and Rural Area (page 20) showing the site as “A rural gap site between a modern and an older property”. Figure 3: Extract of Adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2: Green Belt and Rural Area (page 22) showing the same image of the application site under the current gap site policy. 180
Page 181
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 12 1.3.6 The site has previously been developed. Records indicate that for over 100 years a substantial dog kennel complex existed on the site which was associated with Braidlea and the wider Douglas Estate. It is unknown exactly when this use ceased but is understood to be around the 1950s. Since the demolition of the kennel complex, the site has remained vacant although it is still referred to locally as ‘The Kennels’. The OS map extracts below identify the presence and siting of the former kennels. Whilst there are no structures remaining on the site, the foundations of the former complex are still visible and indicate that a large portion of the application site was built on. The applicant has also found stone lined underground drainage channels and debris from the kennels during recent investigations to identify services on the site. The section of Broadlea Burn which passes through the site is lined with engineered stone blocks. Figures 4 and 5 show the footprint of the kennels complex on OS Mapping, and Figure 6 is an aerial photograph of the site from 2022 in which the original footprint is still visible. 1.3.7 Photographs showing the current condition of the site (as at November 2024) are provided in Appendix A of this Statement. Figure 4: Extract of Ordnance Survey Map Lanarkshire XXXVIII.13 (25 inch to the mile). Surveyed 1857 and published 1860. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland1. 1 https://maps.nls.uk/os/ 181
Page 182
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 13 Figure 5: Extract of Ordnance Survey Map Lanarkshire XXXVIII.13 (25 inch to the mile). Revised 1942 and published 1947. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland. 182
Page 183
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 14 Figure 6: Aerial photograph of site dated 05/06/22. Annotations made by applicant. Source: GetMapping.com 183
Page 184
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 15 1.4 The Proposed Development 1.4.1 The application is for the erection of a one and a half storey dwellinghouse, with detached garage to the rear, on the vacant plot. The proposed house would follow the building line of the adjacent Edgewood house, being set back in the rear of the plot with a large front garden area where a soakaway and underground septic tank would be provided. A small bridge will be constructed to cross the burn, with access being taken from the private road. 1.4.2 The proposed house and garage will be of oak-frame construction, and finished with a mix of off-white render, locally sourced stonework and larch cladding, with a tile roof. Whilst the mix of solutions to achieve thermal efficiency and zero/low carbon energy will be finalised during the technical design stages the aim is that the house will perform highly in relation to current building standards. 2.0 Reasons for Review 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 The Planning Statement which was submitted to SLC Planning in September 2024 contains a detailed appraisal of the application in relation to the relevant policies of the development plan, and should be read in conjunction with these Reasons for Review. 2.1.2 The statutory basis for determining the planning application under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended is that the decision must have regard to the development plan and be made in accordance with its provisions, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 2.1.3 Section 24 of the Act confirms that the development plan is comprised of the National Planning Framework and any local development plan applicable to the area; and that in the event of any incompatibility between their provision, whichever is the later in date shall prevail. 2.1.4 SLLDP2 as the Council’s adopted development plan remains an important part of the statutory development plan. Guidance and advice from the Scottish Government is important to help establish if there is any incompatibility with NPF4 which needs to be considered. 2.1.5 Scottish Government Planning Circular 3/22 Development Management Procedures requires that the aims and objectives of the plans should be reviewed as well as the detailed wording of policies. This approach has been established in law through the House of Lords judgement in City of Edinburgh Council v the Secretary of State for Scotland (1998). 2.1.6 The Chief Planner for Scotland has written to planning authorities on the application of NPF4. Her letter of February 2023 advised planning authorities on the following matters: • Application of planning judgement to the circumstances of an individual situation remains essential to all decision making, informed by principles of proportionality and reasonableness. 184
Page 185
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 16 • NPF4 must be read and applied as a whole. Factors for and against the development will be weighed up in the balance of planning judgement. • In determining compatibility “Provisions that are contradictory or in conflict would be likely to be considered incompatible”. 2.1.7 In considering ‘compatibility’ for this case, it is suggested: • The test is based on whether the provisions of the two plans are in direct conflict with one another. • The test is not whether the policies have the same criteria or requirements. SLLDP2 policies are not incompatible with NPF4 policies just because they contain different criteria – this is why it is also crucial to take account of the intent, aims and objectives of both plans to consider compatibility. • Local Development Plans can include policies in addition to those in NPF4. Each NPF4 policy includes a section on the requirements for Local Development Plans to address. For housing, LDPs should identify locally tailored solutions to meet housing need in rural areas. Further, NPF4 states “there is no need for LDPs to replicate policies within NPF4, but authorities can add further detail including locally specific policies should they consider to be a need to do so, based on the area’s individual characteristics” (NPF4, Annex A, p98). • There is no incompatibility which requires the gap site and rural expansion policies of SLLDP2 to be disregarded. 2.1.8 In the Mousebank Road appeal decision, the Scottish Government Reporter found that the provisions of NPF4 and SLLDP2 are not incompatible on rural housing, finding that the requirement is to consider “incompatibility, not inconsistency” (Frances M McChlery, Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers - Planning appeal reference: PPA-380-2100). 2.1.9 Further, the Chief Planner’s letter to planning authorities in September 2024 advises that the intent of policies 17 (rural homes) and 29 (rural development) is essentially positive, to encourage economic activity and associated homes. It also confirms that policies on local living and transport connections have flexibility built in for rural areas. 185
Page 186
186
Page 187
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 18 Reason for Review 1 The decision has failed to have regard to the development plan for its full terms. • National Planning Framework 4 and the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 are supportive of rural housing on gap sites and consolidating existing groupings, when the full terms are read together which decision makers are required to do. The aims and objectives of policies should be taken into account and not just individual criteria in a policy. Both plans support high quality, small-scale proposals for rural homes in the ‘right places’ where they are appropriate in land use terms and are in-keeping with the rural character. The proposed development of a brownfield gap site close to village services will support these aims. • Scottish Government guidance is that rural development policies in NPF4 are intended to be applied flexibly and with positive intent. The revitalisation of rural Scotland is a key outcome of NPF4, and the proposal will make a positive contribution to the local area. The ‘checklist’ assessment of the proposal against individual criteria in policies has not taken account of this positive intent to allow for revitalisation of rural areas. • NPF4 and SLLDP2 are compatible on rural housing policy. This was a key finding of the Scottish Government appointed Senior Reporter in the 2023 appeal decision to grant planning permission for a house at Woodend, Mousebank Road, Lanark (SLC Ref P/22/1096). NPF4 allows for Local Development Plans to provide additional policies which address local issues, including local solutions to meeting rural housing need. 2.2 Housing Policies in NPF4 and Brownfield Status 2.2.1 Reasons for refusal no.s 2 and 3 are on the grounds that the application is contrary to policies 16 (Quality Homes) and 17 (Rural Homes) of NPF4. 2.2.2 It is assumed that these policy reasons are used because SLC Planning has assessed the application as being contrary to the criteria of Policy 17 on rural homes, and therefore by default also Policy 16 on quality homes because it does not comply with the NPF4 rural homes policy. 2.2.3 Other similar applications have been approved in the Rural Area since adoption of SLLDP2 and the introduction of NPF4, for example; • Spittal, Carnwath (P/22/0360 January 2023 - Planning Committee Decision) • Woodend, Lanark (P/22/1096 December 2023 - DPEA Decision) • Waterfall Meadows, Cleghorn (P/23/0406 September 2024 - PLRB Decision) 2.2.4 It is necessary to firstly review the terms of policy 17 to consider both reasons for refusal. 187
Page 188
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 19 2.2.5 As the development plan for this application is comprised of NPF4 and SLLDP2, Policy 17 should be read in conjunction with the rural policies in SSLDP2. It is important to review the aims and objectives of the policies, rather than just check against each individual criterion of the policy. It is particularly concerning that the Report of Handling has made no mention of why SLC Planning officials consider that SLLDP2 Policy 8 on Gap Sites should be disregarded simply because a similar ‘gap site development’ criterion is not included under Policy 17. 2.2.6 The Planning Statement provided a detailed assessment of the compatibility and inter- relationship of Policy 17 with the relevant rural housing policies in SLLDP2. No comment or response to the assessment in the Planning Statement has been made in the Report of Handling; it does appear that whilst SLC Planning has stated it took ‘cognisance’ of the statement, it was disregarded without any explanation of why. 2.2.7 It appears that SLC Planning has disregarded its own SLLDP2 policies, because those policies are not specifically stated in NPF4. This is a flawed approach which is not consistent with statutory requirements and guidance as set out in Section 2.1 above. In particular, it is very relevant when considering the compatibility of NPF4 and SLLDP2 that attention is paid to each policy section of the NPF4 which sets out the requirements for Local Development Plans. There is no reference to this in the Report of Handling. 2.2.8 When NPF4 is read as a whole, as is required, the application is consistent with Policy 17 for the reasons below: • The application is consistent with the intent of Policy 17 to “encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right location”. Development of gap sites and the re-use of brownfield land are a sustainable approach to rural housing. • NPF4 requires local development plans to “set out tailored approaches to rural housing and where relevant include proposals for future population growth – including provision for small-scale housing such as crofts and woodland crofts and the appropriate resettlement of previously inhabited areas”. Infill and gap sites can provide sustainable locations for meeting housing need in rural areas, reducing impact on landscape setting, character and environmental quality compared to isolated or sporadic development. Gap, infill and cluster development policies are adopted by many Scottish local authorities for rural areas, recognising the contribution that this type of development can make to meeting rural housing need and demand. • The provisions of the SSLDP2 policies GBRA7, 8 and 9 on small scale settlement expansions, gap sites and consolidation of existing building groups are a tailored approach to providing small-scale rural housing developments in a sustainable way, and entirely compatible with the intent and provisions of Policies 16 and 17. This approach is also consistent with the recent guidance to planning authorities by the Chief Planner that the intent of Policy 17 is positive to encourage economic activity and associated homes. Economic activity and housing are both essential facets of sustainable rural revitalisation. 188
Page 189
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 20 • The proposal finds direct support from Policy 17(a)(ii), which allows for rural homes which re-use brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. 2.2.9 Without question, there has been significant former development on the site in the form of a substantial kennel complex, elements of which still remain in the form of engineered groundworks, foundations and associated works. The site is now predominantly grassed but is not of good quality. It is considered that the site fully complies as brownfield land as defined by NPF4: • “Land which has previously been developed. The term may cover vacant or derelict land, land occupied by redundant or unused buildings and developed land within the settlement boundary where further intensification of use is considered acceptable” 2.2.10 SLC Planning has confirmed that the site is a brownfield site. The Report of Handling states in paragraph 3.3, “no robust justification has been provided to consider that a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention over time”. This assessment would only be undertaken for a brownfield site. 2.2.11 Whilst a biodiversity report was not provided with the application, it is visibly apparent that the site, partially grassed, is of poor scrub condition with rubble and stony ground conditions underfoot. It would require significant physical work to remove debris and the remaining foundations of the kennels to improve soil conditions to improve the potential for quality biodiversity and natural habitat. 2.2.12 Photographs illustrating the site conditions are provided in Appendix A of this statement. The ground conditions would have been visible on a site visit by the case officer, if that was undertaken as part of the assessment. The development will allow the opportunity for biodiversity improvements to the site, with native plant species, hedgerow, tree planting and wildlife friendly measures. This can be required through a condition requiring approval of a landscape and biodiversity plan for the garden area. 2.2.13 The application is also broadly compatible with Policy 17 (c) which supports new homes in ‘remote rural areas’ where the proposal supports and sustains existing fragile communities, supports identified local housing outcomes and is suitable in terms of its location, access and environmental impact. 2.2.14 The Scottish Government’s 6-fold Urban Rural Classification 2020 is used to identify remote rural areas. These are “areas that are more than a 30-minute drive time from a settlement with a population of 10,000 or more”. The closest settlements to Douglas with a population over 10,000 are Carluke and Larkhall, approximately a 25-30 minute drive-time. The village is therefore on the edge of a Remote Rural Area and indeed areas of the countryside around Douglas will meet this criterion with additional drive- time beyond the village. Figure 8 below is an extract of the mapped data from the Scottish Government which does indicate how close the site (in light green) is to the Remote Rural Area (darker green). 2.2.15 Douglas benefits from easy access to the M74, but it is still almost half an hour travel to these closest towns, and even Lanark which is just under 10,000 population. The application is therefore broadly consistent with the intent of Policy 17(c) to support investment and housing in remote rural areas. Its location, within walking distance of 189
Page 190
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 21 Douglas allows for local living in a rural context, and there are no adverse issues with regards access or environmental impact which cannot be suitably addressed by condition. Figure 8: Annotated Extract of Urban Rural Classification 2020 Six Fold Classification Dataset (the Scottish Government) 2.2.16 In paragraph 3.4 of the Report of Handling it is stated that “the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to NPF 4 Policy 17 as no policy justification is provided for this proposal and the principle cannot therefore be established”. Clearly, the Planning Statement provided in September 2024 prior to the delegated decision did provide a policy justification which supported the principle of the development, including under Policy 17. It is concerning that none of the above elements of the assessment in relation to NPF4 Policy 17 provided to SLC Planning have been commented on in the Report of Handling; indeed it does appear that cognisance has not been taken of the submitted Planning Statement. 2.2.17 Following from the assessment above on Policy 17, the application complies with Policy 16 (Quality Homes): • Part (c) of Policy 16 supports development proposals for new homes that improved affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address gaps in provision. This includes for self-provided homes. • Part (f) sets out the criteria for assessing proposals for new homes on non- allocated sites in the local development plan. Criterion (i) that the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build out is not particularly relevant to a single dwellinghouse. If permission is granted it would be commenced within statutory timescales. Criterion (ii) that the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods can be satisfied as the SLLDP2 spatial strategy does allow for rural housing on gap sites. As noted in Section 2.4 below the proposal is consistent with local living principles applied in a rural context. Finally under criterion (iii) as explained above the proposal is consistent with ‘policy on rural homes’. In this context the relevant policy is NPF Policy 17 read together with the SLLDP2 policies 4, and the GBRA policies. 190
Page 191
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 22 2.2.18 The application therefore complies with Policy 16. Reason for Review No. 2 The decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of Policies 16 and 17 of NPF4 is flawed (See Reasons for Refusal No.s 2 and 3). The application is supported by NPF4 Policies 16 and 17 for the reasons set out below: • The scale, siting and design of the proposed house is in-keeping with the character of the area and will consolidate an established rural grouping. The development complies with part (a) of Policy 17 of NPF4. • It is a brownfield site which was formerly a significant kennel complex (See Figures 4 and 5 on pages 11-12). Elements of the kennels remain on site in the form of engineered groundworks, foundations and associated works. It has poor soil conditions which will require intervention to improve its biodiversity value and quality. The development also complies with Policy 17(a)(ii) to reuse brownfield land where a return to a natural state will not happen without intervention. The quality of the limited re-naturalisation on the site is very poor (see Appendix A Photographs). • NPF4 requires local development plans to set out locally “tailored approaches to rural housing”. SLLDP2 policies support small scale rural housing proposals in sustainable locations such as gap sites and consolidation of existing housing groups. This approach provides a solution to rural housing demand which also protects the character and quality of the countryside – this is a locally tailored approach consistent with the requirement of NPF4. The application complies with these policies and particularly GBRA8 as a suitable gap site and GBRA9 to consolidate an existing grouping. • The proposal is for a self-build home which is identified in Policy 16 as a means of improving choice and addressing gaps in local provision. It is a gap site which is consistent with development plan policies on rural housing, and is able to support local living given its close proximity to the village of Douglas. It is therefore consistent with NPF4 Policy 16. 2.3 SLLDP2 Policies on Rural Areas 2.3.1 Reason for refusal no. 01 is that “The proposal is contrary to Policy 4 (Green Belt and Rural Area) of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposal does not require to be located within the countryside”. 2.3.2 A detailed assessment of the proposal in relation to the rural area policies in NPF4 and SLLDP2 is set out in paragraphs 2.2.5 – 2.2.24 of the Planning Statement. The site is not within the designated green belt and so Policy 4 of SLLDP2 is only relevant because it is in a rural area. 191
Page 192
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 23 2.3.3 The following paragraphs in the Report of Handling are relevant to this reason for refusal: • Paragraph 3.5 which summarises SLLDP2 Policy 4 stating that “Development which does not require to be located in the countryside will be required to be accommodated within existing settlements. The proposal would result in new housing on undeveloped land and does not require to be located within the countryside. As such it would be contrary to Policy 4 of SLLDP2”. • Paragraph 3.6 which states “Policy GBRA8 Development of Gap Sites of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) is relevant. Given the relationship of the site with adjoining dwellings, its proposed development would meet the requirements for a gap site as set out in SLLDP2. It is therefore considered that the proposal raises no Issues in relation to Policy GBRA8 of the SLLDP2”. In other words, it is compliant with policy GBRA8. • Paragraph 3.7 which states “In summary the principle of the proposed residential development at this location is contrary to SLLDP2 Policy 4 and NPF4 Policy 17 of the current Development Plan. Whilst the proposal appears to draw some support from SLLDP2 Policy GBRA8, the criteria of Policy 17 directly contradicts the content of Policy GBRA8 in this instance, and taking into account the obligations of Section 24(3) of the Act, the principle of the proposed residential development at this location is therefore clearly contrary to the current Development Plan”. 2.3.4 Policy 17 of NPF4, and GBRA8 of SLLDP2 are not incompatible. Policies GBRA8 on Gap Sites and GBRA9 on consolidation of existing building groups do not need to be set aside simply because Policy 17 does not contain identical criteria for rural housing solutions. Such policies are a localised approach to dealing with rural housing demand, consistent with NPF4’s requirements for Local Development Plans to consider additional specific policies. 2.3.5 It is submitted that SLC Planning has not interpreted SLLDP2 Policy 4 as it is intended. 2.3.6 Firstly, it is noted that paragraph 3.25 of SLLDP2 Volume 1 states that the overall aim of the policy is “to control development in the Green Belt and Rural Area and ensure there is no unacceptable significant adverse impact on the environment or on local services and infrastructure”. 2.3.7 In the section “How to use the plan” (SLLDP2 Volume 1, pages 7-8) it is clearly stated: “It should be noted that where there is a main policy in Volume 1, this can be supported by additional detailed policy guidance in Volume 2 (these are cross referenced in both Volumes). Both volumes should be referred to when considering development proposals” and “The relationship between Volume 1 and Volume 2 policies and supporting guidance is summarised in Appendix 1”. 2.3.8 Appendix 1 provides a list of the Volume 2 policies, which provide additional detailed policy guidance to Policy 4 Green Belt and Rural Area and should be referred when assessing proposals under this policy. This includes GBRA8 – Development of Gap Sites, and GBRA9 – Consolidation of Existing Building Groups. 192
Page 193
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 24 2.3.9 Policy 4 also clearly states that development proposals must also accord with other relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and to refer to Appendix 1. 2.3.10 The Report of Handling, paragraph 3.5 states that “Development which does not require to be located in the countryside will be required to be accommodated within existing settlements”. This is incorrect; the policy states that it would be expected – not required. It is considered that an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of this policy has been applied, taking no account of the wider policy support which is provided in other policies and the intent to support small-scale rural development in the right places. 2.3.11 Policy 4 is also read alongside the wider policies of the plan which do not all require a site specific locational need. This matter has previously been considered by the Scottish Government Reporter in her conclusions on the Woodend, Mousebank Road appeal: “In considering the application the officers’ report approached it on the basis that if a proposal did not wholly meet the criteria of a SLLDP2 Volume 1 policy, any Volume 2 policy would be inapplicable. I do not think this can be the correct approach. The plan does say that the policies in both volumes should be considered. If the intention of the council had been to prohibit any development in the rural area for which there was no special rural justification, there would be no point in the suite of policies which expressly define a range of circumstances in which some development in the rural area could take place, such as policies GBRA 5-10 inclusive. Accordingly, I would take the view that a proposal which could be permitted under either GBRA 8 or GBRA 9 could be in accordance with the SLLDP2. (Extract from Woodend, Mousebank Road, Lanark (paragraph 11). Planning appeal reference: PPA-380-2100). 2.3.12 It is the applicant’s position that this application is consistent with Policy 4, and this should not be a reason for refusal: • The development of a single house, on a site which is accepted as meeting the characteristics of a gap site, and which has brownfield characteristics with evidence of former use, is consistent with the aim of Policy 4 to protect rural areas from “significant adverse impact on the environment, or on local services and infrastructure”. • Policy 4 promotes “small-scale development in the right places that is appropriate in land use terms and is of high environmental quality that will support the needs of communities”. The Volume 2 policies are essential to the understanding of what is meant by small-scale development in the right places. If an application is consistent with these policies, then it can also comply with Policy 4. Any other interpretation means no developments assessed under the Volume 2 GBRA policies would comply with Policy 4 unless they also demonstrated a site specific need to be located in the countryside. This cannot be the intended purpose of these policies, which as the Reporter identified in the case above would mean that they had no purpose. 193
Page 194
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 25 • The Report of Handling confirms that the application does comply with GBRA8 on gap site development, therefore the rational conclusion is that it also complies with Policy 4 as a small scale rural development ‘in the right place’. • There is therefore no justification for the planning official’s conclusion that the development would be detrimental to the character and landscape setting of the rural area. As explained in Section 3.0, this conclusion directly contradicts the assessment which previously led to planning permission for a house of similar scale being approved at the same location. Reason for Review No. 3 The decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of SLLDP2 Policy 4 on development in rural areas is flawed (See Reason for Refusal no.1): • Policy 4 is intended to be read with the Volume 2 Policies including Policy GBRA8 on Gap Sites and GBRA9 on Existing Building Groups. The application finds clear support in these policies. The site is presented by the Council as a good example of a rural development gap site in SLLDP2 (see Figures 2 and 3 – page 10). The previous decision to grant planning permission was based on these characteristics which have not changed. • The Report of Handling mis-quotes policy 4 by stating that “Development which does not require to be located in the countryside will be required to be accommodated within existing settlements.” Policy 4 does not state this – it states that such development would be “expected” to be accommodated within settlements. It is not an absolute requirement when the plan is read as a whole, and the GBRA Policies provide guidance on other forms of small-scale local development which do not damage the character of an existing group or the wider countryside. An unreasonably restrictive interpretation of this policy has been made in the decision. • It is not required that developments which comply with Policies GBRA8 and GBRA9 must also demonstrate a specific locational need. Policy 4 supports “small scale development in the right places that is appropriate in land use terms and is of high environmental quality that will support the needs of communities”. The GBRA policies are the policies which guide rural development in “the right places”. The reasoned justification for Policy GBRA8 provides that such development can be acceptable. • It is a small-scale development which is not isolated or sporadic, and which will improve the condition of a former brownfield site and creates no additional burden on existing community services or infrastructure.. 194
Page 195
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 26 2.4 Local Living and Connectivity 2.4.1 Reason for refusal no.4 is that “the proposal is contrary to Policy 14 Design, quality and place of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) as it is neither consistent with the qualities of a sustainable place nor with the qualities of a connected place”. 2.4.2 The Report of Handling states the following on this issue: • Paragraph 3.9 – “The site location, undeveloped ground outwith a settlement and along an unlit private access is not considered to be consistent with the qualities of either a sustainable or a connected place. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy 14 of NPF4” 2.4.3 Further, although NPF4 Policy 15 on Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods is not referred in the reasons for refusal, the Report of Handling states concerns that “In this case access to amenities would rely on travelling a further distance to the nearest local facilities which is not the intention of this policy. The route for walking, wheeling or cycling is around 1300m into the centre of Douglas, the majority of which is on unlit roads with no pedestrian footway”. 2.4.4 The Planning Statement provides a detailed assessment under Policies 14 (and 15). In terms of the six qualities of place referred in Policy 14, the following assessment is made: • Healthy: The private access road is locally used as part of a wider network of walking routes (see figure 9 below), providing access to the village and the wider countryside for leisure. It will also result in the improvement of the environmental condition of a vacant brownfield site, with opportunities for enhancing biodiversity in the garden area. • Pleasant: The proposed dwelling will share the same vernacular style found within the area being built of an oak-frame construction, using materials such as white render and stonework and using sustainably sourced materials for finishes where possible such as timber. Overall, by taking the steps above and being conscious of the project’s impact on its surrounding context, limiting its environmental impact and ensuring the proposal merges cohesively with the existing grouping of houses and local community, this criterion is met. • Connected: In this rural context, the site is relatively well connected, with the village being accessible on foot through local walking networks. As a single dwellinghouse, the proposal is not of sufficient scale to merit any enhancement of wider routes or public transport services, but occupants will benefit from access to the existing services in the village. • Distinctive: Consideration has been taken to the relationship with surrounding properties and public roads. The proposal is sympathetic and sensitive to the locality and will respect the rural location by being positioned within the natural topography with limited visibility from the wider area but viewed as part of the existing grouping. The dwelling is orientated to maximise solar gain with expansive facing glazed elements which also offers views over the fields beyond. The proposed development does not expand upon the existing grouping but seeks to infill an existing space which fits organically within the area. 195
Page 196
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 27 • Sustainable: The site has brownfield characteristics and is defined as a gap site, with close access to the local village so it is considered to be a sustainable location in this rural context. The design of the house will include for low carbon energy solutions; the exact mix of energy generation will be explored and finalised during the technical design stages, working with energy performance specialists. • Adaptable: The proposed development will create a very high quality and flexible home which will be adaptable to the changing needs of its occupants throughout their lives, enabling them to age in place. The house has been designed with sustainability in mind, with embodied carbon minimised wherever possible and significantly lower ongoing emissions by area. 2.4.5 The concept of local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods has been embedded into NPF4 and cuts across many of the policies. 20-minute neighbourhoods are more directly relevant to urban environments, and NPF4 explains that the approach in LDPs should take into account local context, settlement patterns and the particular challenges faced by each place. Policy 15 supports development which contributes to local living and promoting access to sustainable modes of transport including safe, high quality active travel, employment, shopping, health and education, open space and play. 2.4.6 The Scottish Government’s planning guidance2 explains that flexible approaches will be required to achieving local living. The 20-minute timeframe is an approximate guide and does not rigidly define or limit local living in any context, rather it is a useful gauge for reasonable access and distances to services in a neighbourhood or within a local network. 2.4.7 NPF4 Policy 13 supports developments where the transport requirements have been considered in line with sustainable travel and investment hierarchies, and “where appropriate” they provide direct, easy segregated and safe walking and active travel links, are accessible by public transport, integrate transport modes, provide low or zero emission charging points and cycle parking. SLLDP Policy 15 also promotes active travel and access to public transport as fundamental design and locational elements of development, with guidance on requirements for transport assessments and developer contributions towards improvements. 2.4.8 In terms of local living principles and sustainable transport, this must be considered in the context of the rural character of the area and balanced against other outcomes including rural revitalisation and providing sustainable rural housing. The application site is close to the outskirts of Douglas and has existing local walking routes along the private access road to the village which are approximately 1km distance between the site and the village Main Street (allowing for existing crossing points of Douglas Water). These are unlit routes, characteristic of the rural context, but the orange route along the access road to Station Road is considered an easy, relatively flat walking route. The services and public transport available within the village are therefore within reasonable walking distance, commensurate with a rural location. 2 Local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods: planning guidance (Scottish Government, 2024) 196
Page 197
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 28 2.4.9 It is understood from the Report of Handling that SLCs Roads and Transportation Service has no objection to the application, subject to conditions. Figure 9: Annotated Extract of Local Walking Routes with Application Site in Red (Source: Community Action Lanarkshire3) Reason for Review No. 4 The decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of Policy 14 of NPF4 is not appropriate (See Reason for Refusal no.4): • It is a sustainable location, very close to the outskirts of the village of Douglas with existing walking links (see Figure 9). • Scottish Government guidance is that the principles of ‘local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods’ as set out in NPF4 Policy 15 should be applied flexibly, particularly in a rural context. No flexibility for the rural circumstances has been applied in the official’s assessment; rather they have applied an assessment of walking distance and access to services which is more relevant to an urbanised area. • It is not reasonable, proportionate or consistent with Scottish Government guidance to refuse an application for a single house in a rural area because the road access and walking routes are also of rural character. The Council’s Roads Service has not offered any objection to the proposal in terms of accessibility or safety. 3 www.communityactionlan.org/files/MYW_Douglas_Map.pdf 197
Page 198
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 29 3.0 Planning History 3.1.1 Planning permission granted by the Council for a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse on the site in 2014 (Reference CL/14/0177) is a relevant material consideration. The proposed house incorporated a double garage, and was proposed approximately in the same location as this current application, aligned with the adjacent property at Edgewood. 3.1.2 There was dialogue between SLC Planning and Thomson Hunter Associates during the course of this application on whether this application remains extant, with the commencement of works to provide an access driveway, electricity and water supply and new fencing/gate. SLC Planning has advised that as there is no information to confirm that suspensive conditions were discharged, the permission is not extant. 3.1.3 Nevertheless, the previous planning permission is a relevant material consideration. The planning permission was granted under the provisions of a previous development plan, and so consideration is required of the extent that the circumstances have changed. 3.1.4 At the time of the decision, the site was located in a Rural Investment Area and was assessed under the applicable policies in the previous local development plan for housing in the countryside. The delegated report for the application states that it constituted a gap site. It is considered that this assessment remains relevant to the physical characteristics and relationship of the site to its surroundings for the current application: “Given the relationship of the site with adjoining dwellings, its proposed development would integrate well with these existing buildings and result in consolidation of the grouping. The site is well contained by the existing landscape and sheltered backdrop which promotes visual enclosure and reduces the impact on the rural and landscape character of the surrounding area. Views into the site from the wider area are limited” (paragraph 6.4). 3.1.5 This context has not changed with the current application. There is therefore no justification for the conclusion in the Report of Handling that “it would be detrimental to the character and setting of the area”, which directly contradicts this previous assessment. 3.1.6 Whether or not the planning permission has expired, the reasons for granting permission, for development of a similar scale and character, is a relevant and material consideration. The Report of Handling has not included any assessment or consideration of the planning history as a material consideration, as per Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Reason for Review No. 5 The decision has failed to give any weight to the material consideration that planning permission CL/14/0177 was granted in 2014 for a house of similar scale on the site, and that works to implement that consent had been initiated. The reasons for the Council granting planning permission on this gap site (that it will integrate well with the existing buildings and consolidate the grouping) are still relevant under current development plan policy and should have been given weight as a material consideration. 198
Page 199
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 30 4.0 Conclusion 4.1.1 This application is consistent with the development plan of NPF4 and SLLDP2, in particular the provisions of Policy 16 (f) and 17(a)(ii) read together with the applicable rural housing policies Policy 4, GBRA8 and GBRA9 in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 4.1.2 The provisions of these two plans on rural housing are not incompatible with one another and there is no requirement to disregard the provisions of GBRA8 Gap Sites or GBRA9 Consolidation of an Existing Building Group. The site characteristics have not changed from the granting of a previous permission in 2014. The planning officer, in the Report of Handling, agrees that the site constitutes a Gap Site in the Rural Area as defined under GBRA8. Indeed, South Lanarkshire Council continues to use a photograph of the proposal site in SLLDP2 as an example of a rural development gap site. 4.1.3 Planning approval for a single dwellinghouse on this gap site has previously been granted and was deemed to be the “most appropriate development for the site” which also consolidates an existing building group of domestic dwellinghouses. “Given the relationship of the site with adjoining dwellings, its proposed development would integrate well with these existing buildings and result in the consolidation of the grouping” (Report of Handling CL/14/0177). 4.1.4 The site fully complies with the definition of a Brownfield Site where a return to a natural state has not and will not happen without significant intervention. Further, the proposed development of the site would allow an opportunity for biodiversity improvements. 4.1.5 Due to its size, characteristics (split by a burn ditch), location amidst already established domestic dwellinghouses, poor soil condition and Brownfield characteristics there can be no reasonable expectation that the site could be utilised for a purpose associated with agriculture or a rural business. Indeed the proposal for a single domestic dwellinghouse is still considered to be the best use of this vacant Gap site as agreed by the planning officer in the previous approved planning application for the site. 4.1.6 Mr and Mrs Guy hope to bring new investment, housing opportunity and rural revitalisation to Douglas having committed their life savings to building their family home on the site. Having between them worked for over 60 years in front line public service they now respectfully appeal to the Local Review Body in exercise of their public service to take a holistic approach as intended and encouraged by both the Local Development Plan 2 and NPF4, following the chief planning officers guidance that; “Application of planning judgement to the circumstances of an individual situation remains essential to all decision making, informed by principles of proportionality and reasonableness”. 199
Page 200
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 31 Appendix A – Site Photographs Site Photos - Annotated Aerial View 200
Page 201
Photo 1- looking Northwest “Edgewood” on the right and “The Steading” to the rear 201
Page 202
202
Page 203
Photo 3 - Looking Northwest “Braidlea” on the left “Edgewood” on the right 203
Page 204
Photo 4 - Looking East Towards Douglas over the burn ditch in the foreground 204
Page 205
Photo 5 – Engineered stone lining of the burn 205
Page 206
Photo 6 – Looking East “Edgewood” on the left 206
Page 207
Photo 7 – Looking East “Edgewood” on the left and “Braidlea” on the right 207
Page 208
Photo 8 – Looking Southeast “Braidlea on the right” 208
Page 209
Photo 9 – Existing structure on the site 209
Page 210
Photo 10 – Looking North Position of demolished kennels foundations 210
Page 211
Photo 11- Looking Northeast Position of demolished kennels foundations 211
Page 212
Statement of Reasons for Review: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 32 Appendix B - Applicant’s records of pre-purchase correspondence with SLC Planning 212
Page 213
26 July 2022 – Phone conference call with the Planning Officer There was no immediate reply to the email below. The final discussion with the same officer at the planning department took place over the telephone later the same day. During the three way conference call with the planner he stated that, although he could of course give no guarantee of success, in his opinion, there had been no significant change in planning law or position since the previous approved planning application (CL/14/0177) for the site that would automatically or very likely preclude planning consent being granted for the site if we reapplied with a fresh proposal after purchase (the question asked in the email below). The planning officer made no reference at all to the imminent arrival of NPF4, which he must have been aware of, or to any perceived change in position with the adopted Local Development Plan 2, in particular Policy 4, which may affect a new application. The following day, 27 July 2022, a successful offer was made to purchase the site by Mr and Mrs Guy. From: Bob and Ann Guy Sent: 26 July 2022 10:25 To: [SLC Planning Officer – name redacted] Subject: RE: Planning enquiry ref CL/14/0177 Hello [SLC Planning], Thank you very much for getting back to me on this. We really appreciate your time and the information you have provided. As I am sure you will understand it’s a huge step for us to offer on this plot. We were already of the opinion that it was highly unlikely that the 2014 planning application was still going to be live and had expected your reply to be as it was. Unfortunately the closing date for offers on the site is tomorrow (Wednesday) at 12 noon so we have to make a decision today. The only question I have for you is to ask whether in your opinion there has been any significant change in planning law/position since 2014 that would automatically or very likely preclude planning consent being considered for this site if we reapplied with a fresh proposal after purchase. I know and understand that you cannot guarantee anything, but can you provide a general view of the likelihood that any future development would be automatically or very likely rejected due to major changes in legislation since 2014? 213
Page 214
I have already checked with other regulatory bodies SEPA, coal authority, Nature Scotland etc which all come back fine. Any information you could provide would be greatly beneficial to us and would help us with this potentially life changing decision. Thank you again for your time. (Really, really hope that you can assist) Robert and Ann Guy 334 Glasgow Road Blantyre G72 9LQ From: [SLC Planning – name redacted] Sent: 25 July 2022 17:33 To: Bob and Ann Guy Subject: RE: Planning enquiry ref CL/14/0177 Robert Guy I refer to your email of 12 July, regarding the above. I understand that you are considering purchasing this plot and that you seeking to check if the previous planning consent has expired. I would advise that planning consent CL/14/0177 was granted consent on 23 June 2014. To remain valid, works would need to have commenced within 3 years of this decision date. There is a notice of initiation of development on file (dated 11 April 2016) suggesting that works were due to commence around that time, however there is no evidence that works actually commenced. In addition, there is no evidence on file suggesting that the pre-commencement planning conditions were discharged which would need to be done before works lawfully commenced on site. Finally, I have been unable to locate a Building Warrant for the proposed dwellinghouse on file. Given the above it does not appear that works lawfully commenced on site within 3 years and therefore the consent has likely expired. However, if you are able to provide evidence that works did commence on site within that time frame (such as via dated photographs or receipts for works undertaken) and that information was submitted to discharge the pre-commencement conditions then we may be able to consider if this would meet the criteria required to keep the consent valid. I trust the above is of assistance. Kind regards, [SLC Planning Officer – Name Redacted] 214
Page 215
From: Bob and Ann Guy Sent: 12 July 2022 15:21 To: [SLC – Names Redacted] Subject: Planning enquiry ref CL/14/0177 Hello, I hope you can help. I am currently in negotiation with the owner of a plot of land in Douglas which had planning permission granted in 2014 (permission letter attached); Planning ref: CL/14/0177 Description of Proposed Development : Erection of a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse Site Location : Braidlea Cottage Station Road Douglas ML11 0RW The seller has informed me that he believes the 2014 permission is still current as a significant start was made on the build within 3 years of the permission being granted by way of the creation of an access to the site. I have checked your online planning portal and unfortunately there is no information shown which indicates notice was given in writing that the build had started within 3 years of the permission being granted. I am therefore unsure whether the 2014 permission is still current. Can you please confirm whether or not the 2014 planning permission is current or has lapsed in this particular case? I really appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you for your time. Yours Robert Guy 215
Page 216
216
Page 217
217
Page 218
218
Page 219
219
Page 220
220
Page 221
221
Page 222
Planning Statement Erection of detached dwellinghouse, garage and associated works at: Braidlea, Scrogton Road Douglas, West Lanark ML11 0RW September 2024 222
Page 223
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 2 Document Control Project No. GBP24.019 Document Name: Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark Revision: P01 Status: Final Client: Mr and Mrs Guy Prepared by: Gillian Baillie MA(Hons) MRTPI Date: 25th September 2024 Gillian Baillie Planning Limited is a limited company registered in Scotland 14 Prestwick Wynd, Troon KA10 7GH Company No. SC778743 VAT Registration No 452 0013 51 223
Page 224
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 3 Contents 1.0 Introduction and Background ...................................................................................... 4 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Site Description and Context ................................................................................... 4 1.3 The Proposed Development .................................................................................... 8 2.0 Planning Assessment ................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Approach to Assessment ........................................................................................ 8 2.2 The Development Plan ............................................................................................ 9 2.3 Environmental Quality and Climate ....................................................................... 19 3.0 Planning History ....................................................................................................... 22 4.0 Consultations and Representations .......................................................................... 23 5.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 24 224
Page 225
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 4 1.0 Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Gillian Baillie Planning Limited (GPBL) has been commissioned by Mr and Mrs Guy to undertake a planning assessment of their proposal to build a family home on a plot of land at Braidlea, Scrogton Road, Douglas. 1.1.2 A planning application was submitted to South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) in June 2024 by Thomson Hunter Associates (THA) for Mr and Mrs Guy (SLC Reference P/24/0697). This application for the “erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works” is pending determination by SLC. The layout and design of the proposal has been developed by THA with Oakwrights to meet the requirements for Mr and Mrs Guy as a self-build family home. 1.1.3 Mr and Mrs Guy have purchased the application site, which was marketed with planning permission granted in 2014 for a detached dwellinghouse (SLC Reference CL/14/0177). The 2014 permission has been the subject of recent dialogue with SLC on whether it is extant, as a Notification of Initiation of Development (NID) was submitted by the previous landowner in April 2016. Recent correspondence between THA and SLC’s Planning Service is that there is no clear evidence that this permission remains extant, as there are no records of pre-commencement conditions being discharged prior to the NID being submitted. 1.1.4 SLC Planning Service has also advised THA that their assessment to date is that the current proposal is not consistent with the current development plan, particularly policies in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) relevant to housing in rural areas and is likely to be recommended for refusal. Mr and Mrs Guy have sought the advice of GBPL on this aspect, which is the focus of this statement now submitted as supplementary information to the application. 1.2 Site Description and Context 1.2.1 The application site is a vacant plot of land which is situated approximately 400m from the village of Douglas, South Lanarkshire. The site area is under 0.3ha and is predominantly grassed. It was previously part of the property of Braidlea but has been sold separately following the 2014 grant of planning permission. The grazing area to the rear (north-west) of the site remains in the ownership of Braidlea. 1.2.2 A minor watercourse, Broadlea Burn traverses the southern boundary of the site before intersecting it in a north-easterly direction. The site is relatively flat at the front (south- east), with a gentle slope up at the rear, where the adjacent land to the north-west rises more steeply up the hillside with a woodland backdrop. 1.2.3 There are several houses around the edge of the site. It is situated between Braidlea to the south (a traditional stone building which is understood originally to be the gamekeeper’s cottage for Douglas Estate), and Edgewood to the north (a modern detached dwellinghouse constructed in 2012). To the south-east of the site, there is a traditional Steading property which was rebuilt from ruinous condition and converted into three residential units circa 1997. Figure 1 is an annotated image showing the site in the context of the surrounding properties. 225
Page 226
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 5 Figure 1: Aerial image looking towards the application site, date unknown (annotated by the applicant from sale marketing materials). 1.2.4 The site is accessed off Station Road via a private road which is maintained by the property owners (which the owners of the application site also have responsibility for contributing towards). This is the main vehicular and pedestrian access between the existing houses and Douglas, at approximately 1km distance. There is also a walking route to the village travelling north along the private road and then heading east across the Douglas Water to the northern edge of the village (also approximately 1km distance). 1.2.5 Records indicate that the site was historically used as a large dog kennels associated with Braidlea and the wider Douglas Estate, and indeed the site is locally referred to as ‘the kennels’. It is unknown exactly when this use ceased but is understood to be around the 1950s. The OS map extract below identifies the presence and siting of the former kennels. Whilst there are no structures remaining on the site, the foundations of the former complex are still visible and indicate that a large portion of the application site was built on. The applicant has also found stone lined underground drainage channels and debris from the kennels during recent investigations to identify services on the site. The section of Broadlea Burn which passes through the site is lined with engineered stone blocks. Figure 2 shows the footprint of the kennels complex on OS Mapping, and Figure 3 is an aerial photograph of the site from 2022 in which the original footprint is still visible. 226
Page 227
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 6 Figure 2: Extract of Ordnance Survey Map Lanarkshire XXXVIII.13 (25 inch to the mile). Revised 1942 and published 1947. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland1. 1 https://maps.nls.uk/os/ 227
Page 228
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 7 Figure 3: Aerial photograph of site dated 05/06/22. Annotations made by applicant. Source: GetMapping.com 228
Page 229
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 8 1.3 The Proposed Development 1.3.1 The application is for the erection of a one and a half storey dwellinghouse, with detached garage to the rear, on the vacant plot. The proposed house would follow the building line of the adjacent Edgewood house, being set back in the rear of the plot with a large front garden area where a soakaway and underground septic tank would be provided. A small bridge will be constructed to cross the burn, with access being taken from the private road. 1.3.2 The proposed house and garage will be of oak-frame construction, and finished with a mix of off-white render, locally sourced stonework and larch cladding, with a tile roof. Whilst the mix of solutions to achieve thermal efficiency and zero/low carbon energy will be finalised during the technical design stages the aim is that the house will perform highly in relation to current building standards. 2.0 Planning Assessment 2.1 Approach to Assessment 2.1.1 It is understood that SLC Planning Service has requested further information on whether the application can be justified under the policies in NPF4. This is included in this statement, however the starting point for this assessment is the statutory framework for planning decisions in Scotland which is broader than solely the provisions of NPF4. 2.1.2 This statement takes account of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended (“the Act”). In particular, the assessment is guided by the following (underscores are our emphasis): • Section 25 of the Act which requires all planning decisions to have regard to the development plan and are made in accordance with its provisions, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. • Section 24 of the Act which confirms that the development plan is comprised of the National Planning Framework and any local development plan applicable to the area; and that in the event of any incompatibility between their provision, whichever is the later in date shall prevail. • Scottish Government Planning Circular 3/22 “Development Management Procedures”, Annex A which provides guidance on the interpretation of S25 and material considerations. It refers to the approach confirmed in a previous legal judgement that in identifying the provisions of the development plan which are relevant to an application, the aims and objectives of the plan should be reviewed as well as the detailed wording of policies. It also advises that the range of material considerations is wide and specific to an individual case, but can often include Scottish Government policy, advice and guidance, non- statutory planning policies, draft policies, environmental and infrastructure impacts and design, planning history of the site, consultee views and legitimate public concern. 229
Page 230
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 9 • The letter by the Chief Planner for Scotland (February 2023) providing guidance on the transitional arrangements and application of NPF4. This states: “Section 25 of the 1997 Act requires that decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Application of planning judgement to the circumstances of an individual situation remains essential to all decision making, informed by principles of proportionality and reasonableness. It is important to bear in mind NPF4 must be read and applied as a whole. The intent of each of the 33 policies is set out in NPF4 and can be used to guide decision-making. Conflicts between policies are to be expected. Factors for and against the development will be weighed up in the balance of planning judgement.” • The recent further letter by the Chief Planner to planning authorities (September 2024) which clarifies the Scottish Government’s expectations for various areas of planning practice. This includes that recognising the varied character and pressures on rural areas across Scotland, the intent of policies 17 (rural homes) and 29 (rural development) is essentially positive, to encourage economic activity and associated homes. Connecting policies including those on transport and local living have been drafted to build in flexibility for rural development and should not be applied restrictively in that context. 2.2 The Development Plan 2.2.1 The development plan is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (Scottish Government, 2023) (“NPF4”), and the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (“SLLDP2”), adopted 2021. As per S24 of the Act, if there is any incompatibility between the provisions of these plans, NPF4 shall prevail. 2.2.2 The application site is located in the Rural Area and is within a designated Special Landscape Area in SLLDP2. A Special Landscape Area is a local designation for quality and value of landscape. 2.2.3 The key aims, objectives and policies of the development plan which have informed this assessment relate to housing in rural areas, quality in placemaking, and the impacts on environmental quality, landscape setting and climate. 2.2.4 This section provides an appraisal of the relevant provisions of the development plan for each theme. The discussion is prefaced by a high-level summary of the applicable policies and principles in NPF4 and SLLDP2. 230
Page 231
231
Page 232
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 11 2.2.5 Policies 16 and 17 of NPF4, read together with Policies 4 and the accompanying ‘GBRA’ policies in Volume 2 of SLLDP2 are of particular relevance to assessing proposals for housing development in rural areas. There are other provisions of the development which interface with the assessment of development against these policies, such as the policies on local living and brownfield sites. These are discussed in other sections of this report. 2.2.6 Policy 16 of NPF4 sets out criteria for the assessment of all housing development. The preceding text explains that planning authorities should set out tailored approaches to housing which reflect locally specific market circumstances and delivery approaches. The policy provides support for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs and addressing gaps in provision, which includes for self-provided homes. The policy directs housing to allocated sites, but part (f) sets out the circumstances where proposals on land not allocated in the LDP can be supported. This includes where: • The proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and • The proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods; and • The proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes. 2.2.7 With regards “policy on rural homes”, given that the development plan for this application is comprised of NPF4 and SLLDP2, this means Policy 17 read in conjunction with the applicable rural homes policies in the SSLDP2; not Policy 17 in isolation. 2.2.8 In reviewing the rural homes policies of both documents, it is relevant to consider if there is any incompatibility between their provisions. In doing so it is relevant to consider the expectations for Local Development Plans set out in NPF4. 2.2.9 The preceding text to Policy 17 of NPF4 directs LDPs to “set out tailored approaches to rural housing and where relevant include proposals for future population growth – including provision for small-scale housing such as crofts and woodland crofts and the appropriate resettlement of previously inhabited areas”. It is considered that infill and gap sites can provide sustainable locations for meeting housing need in rural areas, reducing impact on landscape setting, character and environmental quality compared to isolated or sporadic development. Gap, infill and cluster development policies are adopted by many Scottish local authorities for rural areas, recognising the contribution that this type of development can make to meeting rural housing need and demand. Identifying and allocating all such potential sites would require significant resourcing effort which would be disproportionate to the scale of development actually proposed on these sites, and it is not considered that this is the intent behind NPF4 Policy 17(a)(i). 2.2.10 The provisions of the SSLDP2 policies on gap sites and existing building groups are a tailored approach to providing small-scale rural housing in a sustainable way which is compatible with the intent and provisions of Policies 16 and 17. This is also consistent with the recent guidance to planning authorities by the Chief Planner that the intent of Policy 17 is positive to encourage economic activity and associated homes. This 232
Page 233
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 12 recent advice is not interpreted as meaning that all individual housing applications in rural areas should be associated with specific economic activity proposals (and indeed that would not be consistent with the provisions of Policy 17 which allows for housing in other circumstances). Rather, given the statutory outcome for NPF4 to increase the population of rural areas this is read as economic activity and housing are both essential facets of sustainable rural revitalisation and should be viewed positively in the right circumstances. 2.2.11 This interpretation is supported by a recent appeal decision on a site at Woodend, Mousebank Road, Lanark (DPEA Reference PPA-380-2100). The Reporter’s Decision Notice can be read in full to understand the context of this application which was for a house in a rural area, on a former nursery site. On the issue of compatibility between NPF4 Policy 17 and the GBRA policies, the Reporter stated: “The Council took the view that NPF4 Policy 17: Rural Homes was incompatible with the GBRA policies and could not be taken to allow any of the exceptions provided by a combination of LDP Policy 4 read with GBRA 8 or 9. However NPF4 Policy 17 says that development proposals for new homes in rural areas are supportable where the development is suitably scaled and in keeping with the character of the area” (para 14) “Ministers have emphasised the importance of reading NPF4 as a whole, and this entails having regard to the intention of the policy, its interaction with other policies and with local planning. Importantly, I take into account what is said in the introduction to Policy 17 about the function of local development plans. It says that local plans should set out tailored approaches to rural housing and where relevant include proposals for where small scale housing can be located. I take the view that LDP policy 4 read with the GBRA policies fulfils this requirement and I do not find an incompatibility between the adopted local plan and NPF4 Policy 17” (para 15). 2.2.12 If the application is consistent with the provisions of NPF17 read together with the GBRA policies, it is therefore also supported under Policy 16 (f). A timescale for build out is not considered particularly relevant to the construction of a single dwelling, just that it should be commenced within statutory timescales. The proposal is also supported by Policy 16(c)(i) which promotes choice of housing to meet varied needs, including self-provided homes. 2.2.13 Policy 17 on Rural Homes supports development where it is “suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in-keeping with the character of the area”. It then sets out a number of criteria including that the site is allocated for housing in the LDP, or it reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. The policy also requires consideration of how new homes in rural areas will contribute towards local living. 2.2.14 This proposal for a single dwellinghouse is consistent with the scale, massing and setting of the adjacent houses, being set back from the private access road and viewed against the backdrop of a wooded hillside. Read with the criteria for gap site development in GBRA8 (see paragraphs 2.2.19-2.2.21 below), the proposal can be considered as suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in-keeping with the character of the area as per the provisions of Policy 17. Braidlea is of traditional character but has been extended, and the Steading was substantially rebuilt from ruin in around 233
Page 234
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 13 1997. Edgewood house is of modern design. A mix of house types and character already exists within the existing grouping as can be seen in Figure 2. 2.2.15 Policy 17 provides support for rural homes which re-use brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. There is evidence of former built development on the site for a large kennels, and evidence of engineered elements and foundations remains on the site. The site is now predominantly grassed but is not of good quality. It is considered that the site does have brownfield characteristics as defined by NPF4 (a similar conclusion was reached in the Woodend appeal decision – see paragraph 14 of the appeal decision notice PPA-380-2100). The applicants’ intention is that the garden for their home will incorporate varied natural features and wildlife friendly planting, including a wildflower meadow at the front of the site. Overall there is an opportunity for the development to enhance and restore the natural state of a large proportion of the site. 2.2.16 Policy 17 also states that development proposals for new homes in ‘remote rural areas’ will be supported where the proposal supports and sustains existing fragile communities, supports identified local housing outcomes and is suitable in terms of its location, access and environmental impact. 2.2.17 The Scottish Government’s 6-fold Urban Rural Classification 2020 is used to identify remote rural areas. These are “areas that are more than a 30-minute drive time from a settlement with a population of 10,000 or more”2. A search of the interactive map of 2020 Mid-Year Population Estimates identifies the closest settlements to Douglas with a population over 10,000 as Carluke and Larkhall3. These are estimated as a 25-30 minute drive-time (using Google Maps). The village is therefore on the edge of a Remote Rural Area and indeed areas of the countryside around Douglas will meet this criterion with additional drive-time beyond the village. Douglas benefits from easy access to the M74, but it is still almost half an hour travel to these closest towns, and even Lanark which is just under 10,000 population. The application can therefore be considered broadly consistent with the terms of Policy 17(c). As noted elsewhere in the report its location can support local living in a rural context, and there are no adverse issues with regards access or environmental impact which cannot be suitably addressed by conditions. 2.2.18 Policy 4 of SSLDP2 seeks to protect the amenity of the countryside in the Rural Area, whilst also supporting small scale development in the right places that is appropriate in land use terms and is of high environmental quality. To direct suitable development to ‘the right places’, this policy is then read in conjunction with the GBRA policies in Volume 2. 2.2.19 Policies GBRA1 (Rural Design and Development), GBRA8 (Development of Gap Sites) and GBRA9 (Consolidation of Existing Building Groups) are considered relevant to this application. 2.2.20 The application is consistent with the provisions of GBRA8 on development of gap sites and GBRA1 Rural Design and Development. The site is bounded on two sides by existing houses, with the Steading housing three residential properties located 2 https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-urban-rural-classification-2020/pages/2/ 3 https://scotland.shinyapps.io/nrs-settlements-localities-map/ 234
Page 235
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 14 adjacent to its south-west corner. The width between Braidlea and Edgewood would not accommodate more than two houses. The proposed plot ratio is consistent with the existing properties in the group and allows for a comparable area of private garden ground. The siting and scale of the house is consistent with the adjacent Edgewood (the footprint of the proposed building is slightly smaller) and has traditional design features. The finish materials of Edgewood are white render with timber cladding, and grey tile. The materials of the proposed house are consistent with Edgewood and other houses in the locality, but final details can be approved by condition if required. A condition requiring approval of details of suitable boundary treatment and landscape proposals can also be attached to a permission. 2.2.21 It is noted on p22 of SLLDP2 (Volume 2) that a photograph of the application site is provided in the context of policy GBRA8. This demonstrates the suitability of this site to be treated as a gap site for the purposes of the policy. However, it is acknowledged that in an objection to the current application the neighbour at Edgewood has stated an opposing view that the photograph is used to demonstrate the unsuitability of the site, based on the text in the preceding paragraph of SLLDP2, 3.16. This text states that “the development of gap sites will not normally be acceptable in locations characterised by scattering of houses or outbuildings/other buildings in the open countryside or where the development would result in the extension of an existing ribbon form of development or contribute to the coalescence with another building group”. 2.2.22 This opinion in the objection is disagreed. The proposed development is not on a site which is characterised by a ‘scattering’ of houses given the relatively close physical and historical relationship between the former gamekeeper’s house at Braidlea and the Steading. It is not an ‘extension’ of existing ribbon development. This would be a situation where a further house was constructed to extend or elongate an existing row of houses, rather than consolidating a gap. The planning history of the site is discussed in Section 3.0 below, noting that the Council’s previous assessment of the site during the 2014 planning application was that it met the characteristics of a gap site. Those characteristics have not changed. Whilst it is acknowledged that the use of the image is open to the reader’s interpretation, it is considered that when read together with the policy and supporting text it is an image intended to demonstrate a suitable gap site. 2.2.23 GBRA9 relates to consolidation of existing building groups. This has a broadly similar emphasis to GBRA8, and it is considered that the proposed development meets these criteria, however the characteristics of the site are more readily associated with a gap site rather than consolidation of an existing group. 2.2.24 In conclusion, it is assessed that the proposed development for a house in a rural area benefits from support under the provisions of NPF4 and in particular Policy 16(f) and 17(a)(ii), read with SLLDP2 policies 4, GBRA1 and GBRA8. 235
Page 236
236
Page 237
237
Page 238
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 17 of wider routes or public transport services, but occupants will benefit from access to the existing services in the village. • Distinctive: Consideration has been taken to the relationship with surrounding properties and public roads. The proposal is sympathetic and sensitive to the locality and will respect the rural location by being positioned within the natural topography with limited visibility from the wider area but viewed as part of the existing grouping. The dwelling is orientated to maximise solar gain with expansive facing glazed elements which also offers views over the fields beyond. The proposed development does not expand upon the existing grouping but seeks to infill an existing space which fits organically within the area. • Sustainable: The site has brownfield characteristics and is defined as a gap site, with close access to the local village so it is considered to be a sustainable location in this rural context. The design of the house will include for low carbon energy solutions; the exact mix of energy generation will be explored and finalised during the technical design stages, working with energy performance specialists. • Adaptable: The proposed development will create a very high quality and flexible home which will be adaptable to the changing needs of its occupants throughout their lives, enabling them to age in place. The house has been designed with sustainability in mind, with embodied carbon minimised wherever possible and significantly lower ongoing emissions by area. 2.2.29 The concept of local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods has been embedded into NPF4 and cuts across many of the policies. 20-minute neighbourhoods are more directly relevant to urban environments, and NPF4 explains that the approach in LDPs should take into account local context, settlement patterns and the particular challenges faced by each place. Policy 15 supports development which contributes to local living and promoting access to sustainable modes of transport including safe, high quality active travel, employment, shopping, health and education, open space and play. 2.2.30 The Scottish Government’s planning guidance4 explains that flexible approaches will be required to achieving local living. The 20-minute timeframe is an approximate guide and does not rigidly define or limit local living in any context, rather it is a useful gauge for reasonable access and distances to services in a neighbourhood or within a local network. 2.2.31 NPF4 Policy 13 supports developments where the transport requirements have been considered in line with sustainable travel and investment hierarchies, and “where appropriate” they provide direct, easy segregated and safe walking and active travel links, are accessible by public transport, integrate transport modes, provide low or zero emission charging points and cycle parking. SLLDP Policy 15 also promotes active travel and access to public transport as fundamental design and locational elements of development, with guidance on requirements for transport assessments and developer contributions towards improvements. 4 Local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods: planning guidance (Scottish Government, 2024) 238
Page 239
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 18 2.2.32 In terms of local living principles and sustainable transport, this must be considered in the context of the rural character of the area (with this intention recently reinforced by the Chief Planner for Scotland) and balanced against other outcomes including rural revitalisation and providing sustainable rural housing. The application site is close to the outskirts of Douglas and has existing local walking routes along the private access road to the village which are approximately 1km distance between the site and the village Main Street (allowing for existing crossing points of Douglas Water). These are unlit routes characteristic of the rural context but the orange route along the access road to Station Road is considered an easy, relatively flat walking route. The services and public transport available within the village are therefore within reasonable walking distance, commensurate with a rural location. Figure 4: Extract of Local Walking Routes (Source: Community Action Lanarkshire5) 2.2.33 In conclusion, it is assessed that the development proposal is consistent with the outcomes for supporting local living (in a rural context), and the re-use and enhancement of a previously used site. It can therefore find support under Policies 9 and 14 of NPF4. 5 www.communityactionlan.org/files/MYW_Douglas_Map.pdf 239
Page 240
240
Page 241
241
Page 242
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 21 renewable sources such as an air source heat pump and solar panels are being considered. Given the extensive permitted development rights for householder micro- generation it is not anticipated that these features would require planning permission in their own right, but a condition requiring further details can be attached if considered necessary. 2.3.3 In terms of biodiversity, as has been referred above the development can include appropriate measures to restore and enhance biodiversity, proportionate to the scale of development as a single dwellinghouse and to improve the natural value of the site which is currently scrub grassland with the remnants of the former kennels use limiting the quality of the soil. There are no natural heritage designations covering the site. It is anticipated that a condition requiring details of biodiversity enhancement measures proportionate to the site will be appropriate to address the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 2.3.4 NPF4 Policy 4 and SLLDP2 Policies 14 and NHE16 are relevant due to the designation of the site within the wider Douglas Valley Special Landscape Area, which is a local designation (referred as a local landscape area in NPF4). These require consideration of any significant adverse impact on its character, scenic interest and special qualities. The report “South Lanarkshire: Validating Local Landscape Designations” (Ironside Farrar 2010) provides further information on the qualities and features of the landscape designations which are still relevant in the current SLLDP2. This describes the Douglas Valley on page 15 as a “sheltered valley containing a well-preserved designed landscape with significant mature woodland planting. It is contained around the historic village of Douglas and provides an accessible, contained and tranquil landscape in contrast to the open and expansive rolling moorland to both the south and north of the valley”. 2.3.5 The report suggests that conservation and opportunities for change within the SLA should relate to (1) continued footpath and recreational opportunities, (2) encouraging replanting of shelterbelts, field boundaries and hedges (3) protecting and enhancing historic landscapes and monuments and encouraging low key sustainable tourism (4)supporting semi-natural regeneration of existing woodland and (5) potential for improvements to landscape and habitat value. 2.3.6 The small-scale nature of this proposal for a single dwellinghouse, on a gap site and at a low-lying level of the valley area is not considered to give rise to any significant impact on the quality of this wider SLA designation. It will not impact on any mature woodland planting or alter the visual setting of Douglas. As noted elsewhere in this report, proposals for landscaping and planting of the garden to enhance biodiversity value can be addressed by condition, and it is considered that this would also provide an opportunity for some of the enhancements suggested such as native hedging and new tree planting. 2.3.7 NPF4 Policy 6 and SLLDP2 policy NHE13 relate to woodland and trees. No areas of woodland will be affected by the proposals. There are three small trees within the site close to the boundary with Edgewood that are understood to be around 10 years old and planted when that house was constructed. Those trees may need to be removed but will be relocated within the site if possible. The enhancement of tree cover across the site can form part of the landscape plan for the development. 242
Page 243
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 22 2.3.8 Policies 5 (Soils) and 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) are referred above for completeness, but the proposal raises no conflict with these policies because: • The land is not Prime Quality Agricultural Land; and • SEPA flood mapping shows no risk of areas of pluvial or fluvial flood risk affecting the site. 2.3.9 Details of a small crossing over the Broadlea Burn as part of the access into the site will be developed and can be the subject of a suspensive condition in terms of its siting and design. Authorisation for construction activities in the vicinity of the burn under the provisions of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Scotland Regulations 2011 will be addressed with SEPA. It is noted that the 2014 permission for a dwellinghouse at the site also allowed for an access over the burn. 2.3.10 In conclusion, it is assessed that with appropriate conditions in place particularly around biodiversity enhancement and landscape planting within the site, the proposal can meet the provisions of the development plan including Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 22. It is also compliant with the equivalent SLLDP2 policies on those provisions. 3.0 Planning History 3.1.1 A review of the planning history of the site on the Council’s planning portal identifies 10 previous applications at the property reference. The details of many of these have been removed, but from reading the descriptions most appear relevant to the original property area for Braidlea and include for householder extensions and the erection of a telecoms mast, and so are not considered further here. 3.1.2 However, of particular relevance to this current application is the grant of planning permission for a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse on the site in 2014 (Reference CL/14/0177). The proposed house incorporated a double garage, and was proposed approximately in the same location as this current application, aligned with the adjacent property at Edgewood. 3.1.3 It is noted that there has been dialogue during the course of this application on whether this application remains extant, with the commencement of works to provide an access driveway, electricity and water supply and new fencing/gate. SLC Planning has advised that as there is no information to confirm that suspensive conditions were discharged, the permission is not extant. 3.1.4 Nevertheless, the previous planning permission is a relevant material consideration. The planning permission was granted under the provisions of a previous development plan, and so consideration is given to the extent that the circumstances have changed. 3.1.5 Whilst the development plan provisions were different, it is noted that the site was located in a Rural Investment Area and was assessed under the applicable policies of the time for housing in the countryside. The delegated report for the application states that it constituted a gap site. The following paragraph explains the officer’s assessment in terms of the relationship of the site with its surroundings. It is 243
Page 244
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 23 considered that this assessment remains relevant to the physical characteristics and relationship of the site to its surroundings for the current application: “Given the relationship of the site with adjoining dwellings, its proposed development would integrate well with these existing buildings and result in consolidation of the grouping. The site is well contained by the existing landscape and sheltered backdrop which promotes visual enclosure and reduces the impact on the rural and landscape character of the surrounding area. Views into the site from the wider area are limited” (paragraph 6.4). 3.1.6 Planning permission was granted subject to conditions relating to parking and access, use of the garage, limiting fence heights, details of foul and surface drainage. 4.0 Consultations and Representations 4.1.1 It is noted from the planning portal that various consultations have been undertaken. Two responses are published on the portal (Scottish Power Energy Networks and the Coal Authority) with no adverse comments. No information has been provided by SLC Planning to the applicant to indicate that any adverse consultations have been received by other consultees. Given the planning history of the site and the previous permission it is anticipated that any issues raised can be addressed by condition. 4.1.2 Two public representations have been made to the application. These relate to concerns with the principle of development, loss of privacy, light and overshadowing, noise and disturbance during construction, impact on local wildlife, traffic impact and drainage. 4.1.3 The principle of development has been discussed in this report and it is not considered that the objector has interpreted the gap site policy in SLLDP2 correctly. 4.1.4 Amenity impacts in terms of loss of privacy, light and overshadowing are not considered to be significant given the siting of the proposed house within a large plot. The layout of the house has been designed to avoid any direct window – window relationship between the closest facing elevations, and the side elevation closest to Edgewood is single storey, with the 1.5 storey height being situated further away. Appropriate landscape planting will also provide privacy for both properties. 4.1.5 Noise and disturbance during construction would be regulated by Environmental Health if necessary and is not relevant to the long-term use and development of the site. 4.1.6 Additional traffic impacts will be minimal given this is an application for a single dwellinghouse. 4.1.7 The crossing point for the watercourse can be managed through good design and environmental practices and will be regulated by SEPA through their authorisation requirements. SEPA has raised no objection to this application. 4.1.8 Overall, it is not considered that the consultations or representations raise any material considerations which would merit refusal of the application. 244
Page 245
Planning Statement: Land at Braidlea, Douglas, West Lanark 24 5.0 Conclusion 5.1.1 This planning statement has explained that the principle of a single dwellinghouse on the application site is consistent with the development plan comprising of NPF4 and SLLDP2, in particular the provisions of Policy 16 (f) and 17(a)(ii) read together with the applicable rural housing policies in SLLDP2. It has also assessed that the provisions of these two plans on rural housing are not incompatible with one another and there is no requirement to discount the provisions of GBRA8. The site characteristics have not changed from the granting of a previous permission in 2014, and it is assessed as being a suitable gap site development. 5.1.2 It is also assessed that the proposal is consistent with NPF4 policy on the re-use of brownfield sites, and whilst noting that the previous use has been ceased for a substantial period, there remains remnants of that former activity on the site which has hindered its re-naturalisation. The proposed development provides an opportunity to enhance the wider biodiversity and natural value with investment in the site; and this can be managed through planning conditions to approve a biodiversity and landscape plan for the garden area. 5.1.3 It is requested that planning permission is approved. 245
Page 246
The Delegated Report of Handling is included at Appendix 2(a) of the review documents. The Planning Decision Notice is included at Appendix 4 of the review documents. 246
Page 247
247
Page 248
248
Page 249
249
Page 250
250
Page 251
Policy 2 : Climate Change Policy 3 : Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 4 : Development Management and Place Making Development Management Place Making and Design Supplementary Guidance (Draft 2013) Design Green Belt and Rural Area Supplementary Guidance (Draft 2014) ♦ Representation(s): 1 Objection Letter 0 Support Letters 0 Comments Letters ♦ Consultation(s): Roads & Transportation Services (Flood Risk Management Section) Roads and Transportation Services (Clydesdale Area) The Coal Authority - Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department 251
Page 252
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Material Considerations 1.1 The application site is located at Broadlea approximately 1 km to the west of Douglas and lies within a grouping of buildings including a traditional former farmhouse (Brodlea Cottage), and an agricultural shed lies to the south and a recently built dwelling to the north. It is situated at the northern edge of Douglas Water flood plain which rises gradually westwards above the flood plain towards a well established woodland backdrop and traversed at the south-eastern edge by Broadlea burn. The site is accessed off Station Road along a private road which is around 600 metres in length. 2 Proposal(s) 2.1 The proposal seeks detailed planning permission for the erection of a 1.5 storey detached dwellinghouse with associated parking on the site. The proposed development would use the existing single track private access to serve the site. The proposal also involves the erection of a small bridge crossing over the existing burn ditch which would form part of the driveway. 3 Background 3.1 Local Plan Policy 3.1.1 The site is identified in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Plan as being within the Rural Investment Area outwith the settlement boundary of Douglas where Policy STRAT 5 applies. This policy directs the assessment of housing proposals within this area to Policy CRE 1: Housing in the Countryside. Detailed guidance on new development is found in Policies DM 1: Development Management, ENV 11: Design Policy and ENV 34: Development in the Countryside. 3.1.2 The Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP) and associated Supplementary Guidance was approved by Planning Committee on 16th April 2013. Therefore the proposed SLLDP and Supplementary Guidance (SG) are now a material consideration when determining planning applications. Policy 2 : Climate Change; Policy 3: Green Belt and Rural Area and Policy 4 – Development Management and Place Making. The related SGs on Development Management, Place Making & Design and Green Belt and Rural Area are therefore relevant in this case. The proposed development has been considered against this policy and its appropriate SG, where available, and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current local plan. 3.2 Relevant Government Advice/Policy 3.2.1 Government policy is set out in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) which encourages Councils to take a positive approach to new development in the rural area. The aim should be to enable development in rural areas which supports prosperous and 252
Page 253
sustainable communities whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality. The Policy states that development plans should support more opportunities for small scale housing development in all rural areas, including new clusters and groups and extensions to existing clusters and groups. New development should respond to the specific character of a location and fit into the landscape. 4 Consultation(s) 4.1 Roads and Transportation Services: Have no objection to the proposal. Response: Noted. 4.2 Roads and Transportation Services (Flood Risk Management): Have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). Response: Appropriate conditions will be imposed on any consent if planning permission is granted. 4.3 The Coal Authority: Have no objection to the proposed development. Response: Noted. 5 Representation(s) 5.1 Following the carrying out of statutory neighbour notification and the advertisement of the application in the local press due to the non-notification of neighbours, one letter of objection has been received. The grounds of objections are summarised below: a) The objector is concerned that given the design and architectural features of his house the proposed development will be very close to the boundary and as such it will have a major impact on his privacy. Response: Although the footprint of the proposed development is within one metre of the boundary line, it is not considered that the gable side windows facing the neighbouring property would be such that they would not give rise to any significant privacy issues to the neighbouring property to the north as they relate to an ensuite bathroom at the upper floor level while those at ground floor level would be screened by a boundary fence. b) The proposed development will affect the character of his property. Response: The proposed development respects the local context of the area which comprises a mix of houses of varying storey heights and the proposal would therefore have no adverse impact on amenity including the objector’s property. 253
Page 254
c) The objector is concerned that the proposed development will restrict daylight into his rooms and will create overshadowing. Response: Due to its design and the relationship of the proposed dwelling with the objector’s property it is considered that the proposal will not create any overshadowing or loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property. d) The proposed development will create noise and disturbance due to its proximity to his house. Response: Any complaints relating to noise nuisance will be dealt by the Council’s Environmental Services. e) The objector was given the impression during the processing of the application for his house that planning consent would not be approved in this location due to various reasons such as: the development would require to cross a watercourse which SEPA strongly object to it, the conditions of the access road and the setting would lend itself to another house but would be the maximum. Response: Every application is determined on its merits and in this case the application complies with the local plan policy and the Council’s Rural Design Guide. f) The objector feels any further development in this area is not included in the Local Development Plan. Response: The Proposed Local Development Plan covers all development in the Council area including the application site where Policy 3 - Green Belt and Rural Area specifically deals with development in the rural area. g) The objector is concerned that the applicant has 3 properties to the rear of the application site which planning permission was granted for holiday lets (Application no: CL/98/0059). These properties are not used as holiday lets but are in full time occupation. This puts additional stress on the dirt track road with traffic which includes buses. Response: The Council‘s Enforcement Officer will investigate the matter and take appropriate action to ensure that the applicant complies with the planning permission referred to above. The access road is in private ownership therefore any issues regarding the state of the access road should be dealt with by the owners of the road. 6 Assessment and Conclusions 6.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for the erection of a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse at Braidlea Cottage, Station Road, Douglas. The proposal is required to be assessed against the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Plan. Other material considerations include the impact on the landscape character of the area, the road safety implications of the proposal and relevant government advice and policy and the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2013). 254
Page 255
6.2 The South Lanarkshire Local Plan (adopted) identifies the area as being within the Rural Investment Area where Policy STRAT 5 applies. This policy aims to direct new residential development to within identified settlement boundaries such as Douglas and to restrict development in the rural area unless specific criteria can be met. Outwith settlement boundaries, new buildings are directed to existing building groups and gap sites that consolidate existing groupings. It further advises that any housing development within the Rural Investment Area should conform to Policy CRE1: Housing in the Countryside which provides specific criteria against which all new housing proposals in the countryside should be assessed. 6.3 The proposal is not for a new dwellinghouse required in association with agriculture or a rural business but it constitutes a gap site which is defined as a site bounded on at least two sides by built development and fronted by a road which should generally be capable of accommodating one house but a maximum of two subject to design being appropriate to the scale and nature of the adjacent development. The proposal meets the Local plan policy provision under Policy STRAT 5. 6.4 The proposal has also been assessed against policies CRE 1, DM 1, ENV 11 and ENV 34 of the adopted local plan which provide detailed guidance on new development and in particular new housing in the countryside. Given the relationship of the site with adjoining dwellings, its proposed development would integrate well with these existing buildings and result in the consolidation of the grouping. The site is well contained by the existing landscape and sheltered backdrop which promotes visual enclosure and reduces the impact on the rural and landscape character of the surrounding area. Views into the site from the wider area are limited. The development complies with the Council’s Rural Design Guide the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the character and landscape setting of the surrounding rural area. In addition, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) document published after the adoption of the local plan encourages greater flexibility in assessing proposals for new housing in the rural area, in particular where they relate to existing building groups and where there would be no adverse environmental impact. I am satisfied that the proposal in this instance fits with this overall approach. The application site is capable of accommodating a house, garden, parking and associated landscaping and the proposed design will relate satisfactorily to the existing buildings to the north and south. Roads and Transportation Services have no objections subject to conditions relating to SUDS provision. The proposed access arrangements to the site are acceptable. In addition, the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the character and landscape setting of the surrounding rural area. One letter of objection has been received from a former resident who used to reside in the vicinity of the application site. His concerns have been given careful consideration and none of the issues raised merit refusal of the application. 6.5 The Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP) and associated Supplementary Guidance was approved by Planning committee on 16th April 2013. 255
Page 256
Therefore the proposed SLLDP and Supplementary Guidance (SG) are now a material consideration when determining planning applications. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the plan and its appropriate SG, where available, and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current local plan. In particular, the proposal accords with Policy 3 – Green Belt and Rural Area point (iv) as it is for limited development within a clearly identifiable infill, gap site. It is considered that the proposal also accords with Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making in the Proposed Plan. The proposal also accords with the policy contained in the SG on Development Management Place Making & Design and Green Belt Rural Area. 6.6 Based on the above, the current local plan policy and guidance contained within the recently produced Scottish Planning Policy document, the development proposal is acceptable. The proposed development fits the landscape setting, integrates well with the neighbouring properties and there would be no adverse impact on the amenity, landscape character and built heritage of the surrounding area. I therefore consider that planning permission should be granted. 7 Reason for Decision 7.1 The proposal would be the most appropriate development for the site as it would integrate well with the neighbouring properties and would have no adverse impact on road safety, on either the residential or visual amenity of the surrounding area. It therefore complies with Policies: STRAT 5; CRE 1; CRE 1; 29; ENV 11; DM 1 and ENV 34 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Plan and Policies: 2, 3 and 4 of the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2013) and SGs on Development Management, Place Making and Design and Green Belt and Rural Area. Delegating Officer: Tony Finn Date: 23 June 2014 Previous References ♦ None List of Background Papers Application Form Application Plans South Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009 (adopted) Neighbour notification letter dated 28.04.2014 Consultations 256
Page 257
Roads and Transportation Services (Clydesdale Area) 08/05/2014 Roads & Transportation Services (Flood Risk Management Section) 01/05/2014 The Coal Authority - Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department 06/06/2014 Representations Representation from : Keith Burrell, Received by E-Mail, DATED 20/05/2014 Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Jerry Gigya (Tel : 01555 673170 ) E-mail: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 257
Page 258
Detailed Planning Application PAPER APART – APPLICATION NUMBER : CL/14/0177 CONDITIONS 1 That before any development commences on site or before any materials are ordered or brought to the site, details and samples of all materials to be used as external finishes on the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. 2 That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 above, the roof of the dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be finished in slate or slate substitutes and the walls finished in wet dash render. 3 That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is completed or occupied, a minimum of 3 parking spaces shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained within the associated plot to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority. 4 That before the dwellinghouse hereby approved is completed or occupied, a turning space shall be provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the application site in forward gears at all times. 5 That the use of the garage hereby permitted shall be restricted to private use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse on the site and no commercial activity shall be carried out in or from the garage. 6 That notwithstanding the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 or (or any such order revoking or re-enacting that order), no fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected on the site other than post and wire fences up to 1 metre in height or those expressly authorised by this permission without the prior written permission of the Council as Planning Authority. 7 That before the dwellinghouse hereby approved is occupied, a septic tank and soakaway designed and constructed in accordance with the current code of practice BS6297:1983 shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 8 That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and requirements. 9 That the developer shall arrange for any alteration, deviation or reinstatement of 258
Page 259
statutory undertakers apparatus necessitated by this proposal all at his or her own expense. REASONS 1.1 In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control. 2.1 To ensure a satisfactory integration of the proposed development with the existing building both in terms of design and materials 3.1 To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site. 4.1 In the interest of public safety 5.1 To retain effective planning control and safeguard the amenity of the area. 6.1 To ensure only fencing of a type and height appropriate to the countryside is erected. 7.1 To ensure that ground conditions are suitable for a soakaway to dispose of effluent. 8.1 To ensure that the disposal of surface water from the site is dealt with in a safe and sustainable manner, to return it to the natural water cycle with minimal adverse impact on people and the environment and to alleviate the potential for on-site and off-site flooding. 9.1 In order to retain effective planning control INFORMATIVES 1 This decision relates to drawing numbers: PL 02 Rev C; PL 03 Rev A; PL 04 Rev A; PL 05 Rev A; PL 06 REv D and PL 07 Rev A. 2 Failure to comply with the conditions imposed on this planning permission can result in the planning authority serving a Breach of Condition Notice and/or Enforcement Notice. If any of the requirements set out in these notices are not then complied with, a fixed penalty notice may be served seeking the payment of the sum specified in the penalty notice to the Planning Authority. The sum will be as set by The Town and Country Planning (Amount of Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. 3 The person carrying out the development must give advance notice in writing to 259
Page 260
the planning authority of the date when it intended to start. Failure to do so is a breach of planning control. It could result in the planning authority taking enforcement action. [See sections 27A and 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)]. 4 As soon as possible after it is finished, the person who completed the development must write to the planning authority to confirm the position [See section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)]. 5 This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. (See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).) 6 The proposed development (in part) lies within an area that has been defined by The Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place. It is recommended that information outlining how the former mining activities affect the proposed development, along with any mitigation measures required (for example the need for gas protection measures within the foundations), be submitted alongside any subsequent application for Building Standards approval (if relevant). Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at www.coal.decc.gov.uk Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires the prior written permission of The Coal Authority. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action. Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is available on The Coal Authority website www.coal.decc.gov.uk 260
Page 261
7 The proposed development (in part) lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is also available on The Coal Authority website at www.coal.decc.gov.uk Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com 8 Details of this application should be sent to SEPA for their consideration and comments, as they are the legal body responsible for some of the matters raised. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, ASB Angus Smith Building, 6 Parklands Avenue, Eurocentral, Holytown, North Lanarkshire, ML1 4WQ 261
Page 262
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 To : Mr Robert Gentle Per : Hareshaw Properties Limited Braidlea Cottage Station Road Douglas ML11 0RW 17 Wisons Road Hareshaw ML1 5NA With reference to your application dated 12 March 2014 for Conditional Planning Permission under the above mentioned Act : Description of Proposed Development : Erection of a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse Site Location : Braidlea Cottage Station Road Douglas ML11 0RW SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: GRANT CONDITIONAL PLANNING PERMISSION for the above development in accordance with the plan(s) specified in this decision notice and the particulars given in the application, subject to any condition(s) listed overleaf in the paper apart. Any condition(s) are imposed by the Council for the reasons detailed. Date: 23/06/14 Michael McGlynn, Head of Planning and Building Standards 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 Building Standards Services Application No CL/14/0177 Conditional Planning Permission 262
Page 263
Conditional Planning Permission PAPER APART - APPLICATION NUMBER: CL/14/0177 CONDITIONS 1 That before any development commences on site or before any materials are ordered or brought to the site, details and samples of all materials to be used as external finishes on the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. 2 That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 above, the roof of the dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be finished in slate or slate substitutes and the walls finished in wet dash render. 3 That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is completed or occupied, a minimum of 3 parking spaces shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained within the associated plot to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority. 4 That before the dwellinghouse hereby approved is completed or occupied, a turning space shall be provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the application site in forward gears at all times. 5 That the use of the garage hereby permitted shall be restricted to private use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse on the site and no commercial activity shall be carried out in or from the garage. 6 That notwithstanding the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 or (or any such order revoking or re-enacting that order), no fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected on the site other than post and wire fences up to 1 metre in height or those expressly authorised by this permission without the prior written permission of the Council as Planning Authority. 7 That before the dwellinghouse hereby approved is occupied, a septic tank and soakaway designed and constructed in accordance with the current code of practice BS6297:1983 shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. 8 That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and requirements. 9 That the developer shall arrange for any alteration, deviation or reinstatement of statutory undertakers apparatus necessitated by this proposal all at his or her own expense. REASONS 1.1 In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control. 2.1 To ensure a satisfactory integration of the proposed development with the existing building both in terms of design and materials 3.1 To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site. 4.1 In the interest of public safety 5.1 To retain effective planning control and safeguard the amenity of the area. 6.1 To ensure only fencing of a type and height appropriate to the countryside is erected. 7.1 To ensure that ground conditions are suitable for a soakaway to dispose of effluent. 8.1 To ensure that the disposal of surface water from the site is dealt with in a safe and sustainable manner, to return it to the natural water cycle with minimal adverse impact on people and the environment and to alleviate the potential for on-site and off-site flooding. 9.1 In order to retain effective planning control REASON(S) FOR DECISION 263
Page 264
1 The proposal would be the most appropriate development for the site as it would integrate well with the neighbouring properties and would have no adverse impact on road safety, on either the residential or visual amenity of the surrounding area. It therefore complies with Policies: STRAT 5; CRE 1; CRE 1; 29; ENV 11; DM 1 and ENV 34 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Plan and Policies: 2, 3 and 4 of the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2013) and SGs on Design, Green Belt and Rural Area.. 264
Page 265
NOTES TO APPLICANT APPLICATION NUMBER: CL/14/0177 Important The following notes do not form a statutory part of this Decision Notice. However, it is recommended that you study them closely as they contain information which guides you to other relevant matters that may assist in ensuring that the development is properly carried out. 1 This decision relates to drawing numbers: PL 02 Rev C; PL 03 Rev A; PL 04 Rev A; PL 05 Rev A; PL 06 REv D and PL 07 Rev A. 2 Failure to comply with the conditions imposed on this planning permission can result in the planning authority serving a Breach of Condition Notice and/or Enforcement Notice. If any of the requirements set out in these notices are not then complied with, a fixed penalty notice may be served seeking the payment of the sum specified in the penalty notice to the Planning Authority. The sum will be as set by The Town and Country Planning (Amount of Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. 3 The person carrying out the development must give advance notice in writing to the planning authority of the date when it intended to start. Failure to do so is a breach of planning control. It could result in the planning authority taking enforcement action. [See sections 27A and 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)]. 4 As soon as possible after it is finished, the person who completed the development must write to the planning authority to confirm the position [See section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)]. 5 This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period. (See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).) 6 The proposed development (in part) lies within an area that has been defined by The Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place. It is recommended that information outlining how the former mining activities affect the proposed development, along with any mitigation measures required (for example the need for gas protection measures within the foundations), be submitted alongside any subsequent application for Building Standards approval (if relevant). Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at www.coal.decc.gov.uk Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires the prior written permission of The Coal Authority. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action. Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is available on The Coal Authority website www.coal.decc.gov.uk 7 The proposed development (in part) lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is also available on The Coal Authority website at www.coal.decc.gov.uk 265
Page 266
Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com 8 Details of this application should be sent to SEPA for their consideration and comments, as they are the legal body responsible for some of the matters raised. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, ASB Angus Smith Building, 6 Parklands Avenue, Eurocentral, Holytown, North Lanarkshire, ML1 4WQ 266
Page 267
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR E: dpea@gov.scot T: 0300 244 6668 Appeal Decision Notice Decision I allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the 12 conditions listed in Annex B to this decision notice. Attention is drawn to the 3 advisory notes at the end of the notice. Reasoning 1. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) and the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Where there is any incompatibility (not “inconsistency”) in the provisions of these documents, the later of them is to prevail. 2. The main issue in this appeal is whether or not the appeal proposal can be said to be acceptably located, in terms of the various development plan policies designed to protect the rural area from unsuitable and unsustainable development and to encourage compact settlements; and if not, whether there are material considerations which would justify a departure from policy in this case. Description of the site and context. 3. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey detached dwelling and double garage on steeply sloping land forming part of the south east side of the Mouse Water river valley, a tributary of the Clyde. The site lies about 500 metres to the north west of the urban edge of Lanark as it is defined in the SLLDP2 proposals map. I adopt the summary of the site and the appeal proposal in paragraphs 1.1, and 2.1 of the officer’s report for the council’s planning committee of the 9 May 2023. I highlight that the north eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the boundary of the Clyde Valley Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Cleghorn Glen Site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and the future boundary treatment between any development on the appeal site and the SAC has been a matter of significant concern to NatureScot. This is partly because of an historic issue whereby the Decision by Frances M McChlery, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers • Planning appeal reference: PPA-380-2100 • Site address: Woodend, Mousebank Road, Lanark, ML11 7TD • Appeal by Mr John Cuthell against a decision by South Lanarkshire Council • Application for planning permission reference P/22/1096 dated 29 July 2022 refused by notice dated 11 May 2023 • The development proposed: Erection of single story detached dwelling and double garage • Application drawings: listed in Annex A to this notice • Date of site visit by Reporter: Friday 1 September 2023 Date of appeal decision: 12 December 2023 267
Page 268
PPA-380-2100 2 development of one of the houses recently constructed adjacent to the appeal site, mentioned below, resulted in encroachment into the SAC over land owned by NatureScot. 4. The appeal site is part of the site of the former Woodend Nursery, one of the many plant and vegetable operations once common along the lower slopes of the Clyde Valley. Since the nursery closed several years ago its grounds have been used to provide housing plots, first approved by the council about 13 years ago. There are now two very large existing contemporary houses set in gardens immediately to the west of the appeal site closer to the river bank and at a lower level. A third house was given planning permission in March 2022, and is now under construction to the south west of the appeal site. Woodend Cottage, a traditional building which was once the on-site dwelling house for Woodend Nursery, lies on the south eastern boundary of the site, and the access road on to Mousebank Road to the Cottage, is along the southern boundary of the site. The appeal site is accordingly located in the middle of an existing group of four houses and is surrounded on three sides by development, the fourth side, to the north, being the SAC edge. Non controversial aspects of the development. 5. As regards climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gases, SLLDP2 Policy 2 and NPF4 Policy 1 are in accord in requiring significant weight to be given to climate change as a factor in decision making. The council officers judged that the appeal proposal was not sustainable development because it was inappropriately located, which I discuss below. That said, they also considered that if the proposal was to be considered acceptable in locational terms, conditions could be imposed to ensure that the development used low carbon technology, that appropriate tree conservation and planting took place, and electric vehicle charging points were incorporated. I agree with this approach. The council has suggested conditions to address these particular issues which I have largely adopted, such that I find the appeal proposal, as appropriately conditioned, to be compliant with the policy requirement. 6. The council officer’s report noted that any development would require to comply with NPF4 Policy 4: Natural Places, which is designed to ensure that significant adverse effects on natural environment assets are avoided. The equivalent principles are in SLLDP 2 Policy 14: Natural and Historic Environment which require that any development proposals which affect an SAC or a site designated as a special landscape area in the local plan (as is the case here) would only be supported if there were no significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or its qualities. The site falls within the Incised River Valley Landscape character type, where settlement encroachment and suburban residential development is discouraged, and where the character of the areas would be very sensitive to any measures which resulted in the loss of natural river landscapes, or the introduction of modern, engineered structures. However, the officer’s report refers to the woodland backdrop to the development and to other similar developments nearby, and concludes that there would be no significant adverse impact on the special landscape area. I agree. While NatureScot initially made a conditional objection based on the potential effect on the SAC edge, this was withdrawn following discussions with the proposers about reinforcing and making clear the location of the boundary of the SAC edge, and the planting of a woodland buffer zone within the site, and on the basis that a number of precautionary conditions relating to management or avoidance of adverse impact would be imposed on any permission granted. I agree with the officer’s evaluation that the proposals are acceptable in terms of the effect on the SAC and so would not be contrary to NPF4 Policy 4, or SLLDP Policy 14. 268
Page 269
PPA-380-2100 3 7. As regards design quality, the officer’s report finds the traditional design and massing of the proposed dwelling to accord with SLLDP Policy 5: Development Management and Place Making, and Policy GBRA1: Rural Design and Development of the local plan. Again, I would agree. The principle of housing at this location 8. In terms of development plan policy, the appeal site is located in the designated rural area of the SLLDP 2, so that Policy 4: Green Belt and Rural Area of Volume 1 of the LDP applies. The equivalent NPF4 policy is Policy 17: Rural Homes. 9. The objective of SLLDP Policy 4 is to control development in the rural area and ensure there is no unacceptable significant adverse impact on the environment or on local services and infrastructure. Within the rural area the council will seek to protect the amenity of the countryside, while at the same time supporting small scale development in the right places, which is appropriate in land use terms; is of high environmental quality; and will support the needs of communities. The rural area is said to function primarily for agriculture, forestry and recreation and other countryside uses. Development which does not require to locate in the countryside will be expected to be accommodated within the settlements identified on the proposals map. Isolated and sporadic development will not be supported. 10. It is clear that the appeal proposal is “not supported” by the local plan to the extent that it is clearly not necessary that it be located within the rural area. I find the location of the site not to accord with LDP Policy 4. However, the plan goes on to indicate some support for small scale development in the rural area in certain specified circumstances. For the reasons laid out in paragraph 4 above, I do not consider that the appeal site can be said to be isolated or sporadic. 11. In considering the application the officers’ report approached it on the basis that if a proposal did not wholly meet the criteria of a SLLDP2 Volume 1 policy, any Volume 2 policy would be inapplicable. I do not think this can be the correct approach. The plan does say that the policies in both volumes should be considered. If the intention of the council had been to prohibit any development in the rural area for which there was no special rural justification, there would be no point in the suite of policies which expressly define a range of circumstances in which some development in the rural area could take place, such as policies GBRA 5-10 inclusive. Accordingly, I would take the view that a proposal which could be permitted under either GBRA 8 or GBRA 9 could be in accordance with the SLLDP2. 12. As regards GBRA8: Development of Gap Sites, this provides that within the designated Green Belt and Rural Area, proposals for new houses within clearly identifiable gap sites will be supported where all of six criteria can be met. I take the view that the appeal site is a gap site within the meaning and intention of the policy, and that the appeal proposals accord with all of the policy criteria. 13. Policy GBRA9: Consolidation of Existing Building Groups says that within the Green Belt and Rural Area proposals for new houses within existing building groups will be supported where five criteria can be met. I consider that the four houses around the site constitute an existing building group within the meaning of the policy, and that the appeal proposals meet all five tests. 269
Page 270
PPA-380-2100 4 14. The council took the view that NPF 4 Policy 17: Rural Homes was incompatible with the GBRA policies and could not be taken to allow any of the exceptions provided by a combination of LDP Policy 4 read with GBRA 8 or 9. However, NPF4 Policy 17 says that development proposals for new homes in rural areas are supportable where the development is suitably scaled and in keeping with the character of the area, which as explained above, is the position here. There is then a list of alternative additional requirements which may render a site suitable. The site could be acceptable if it reuses brownfield land, where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. NPF4 defines brownfield land as land which has previously been developed. The term may cover vacant or derelict land, land occupied by redundant or unused buildings and developed land within the settlement boundary where further intensification of use is considered acceptable. SLLDP 2 has a slightly different definition, which appears to highlight brownfield “infill sites” as eligible for redevelopment, which I consider the appeal site to be. The evidence on the extent to which the appeal site has been previously utilised is inconclusive. Part of the land may have been used for nursery buildings and part of it for growing crops. These uses were discontinued some years ago, and the council argues that the appeal site has effectively naturalised. I find that the land has been used for the grazing of horses, and is not currently of high environmental quality. The ground underfoot was uneven and stony, and I accept the evidence of the appellant that the appeal site occasionally throws up wires and debris which have caused injury to her horse’s feet. The appeal proposals will result in some environmental improvement by reason of the reinforcement through planning conditions of the SAC edge, and there has been no suggestion that would be likely to happen otherwise. I find that the appeal site does have brownfield characteristics. 15. Ministers have emphasised the importance of reading NPF4 as a whole, and this entails having regard to the intention of the policy, its interaction with other policies, and with local planning. Importantly, I take into account what is said in the introduction to Policy 17 about the function of local development plans. It says that local plans should set out tailored approaches to rural housing and where relevant include proposals for where small scale housing can be located. I take the view that LDP policy 4 read with the GBRA policies fulfils this requirement and I do not find an incompatibility between the adopted local plan and NPF4 Policy 17. Local living and “semi-suburban sprawl” 16. A key principle of NPF4 is the drive towards compact urban settlements, and local living, which aims to provide citizens with their necessary facilities where possible within a journey of 20 minutes, preferably by sustainable or healthy transport, explained in NPF policy 15:Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods. This is an important new emphasis, and the NPF policy wording reflects that implementation of this principle will reflect local circumstances going forward. The council officer’s report and the council’s submissions give significant weight to this aspect, emphasising the relatively poor transport connections between the site and the town. I observe that this is a factor of the topography and the condition of Woodend Road, rather than the distance from the defined urban edge, and is applicable to the other three houses approved by the council which are adjacent to the appeal site. As I mention above, I do not consider the appeal site can be described as isolated or sporadic, and I do not consider it to be remote from the town. The council effectively says that their previous decisions to permit housing on the Woodend site must now be regarded as unacceptable, arguing that this was an example of “semi suburban” sprawl. The officers report says that large houses outwith the urban area are no longer permissible, either in terms of SLLDP2 Policy 4, or NPF4 Policies 15 or 17. 270
Page 271
PPA-380-2100 5 17. As I explain above, I do not agree that LDP Policy 4 can be read as a prohibition of rural housing in any circumstances, given the GBRA exception policies. Both of these policies seem to me to define restricted circumstances where comparatively small scale extensions of the built form would be permissible in the rural area. I do not agree that the appeal proposal here can be characterised as “semi suburban urban sprawl”, in the sense that the urban form is being extended into the countryside in an uncontrolled manner. This is more a limited rationalisation or completion of an existing housing group, as the local plan GBRA policies envisage. 18. Accordingly, I take the view that the local development plan policies can be read as identifying the appeal site as a suitable place where limited development can take place in the rural area. I do not find the SLLDP policy framework to be incompatible with the equivalent policies in NPF4, and I find that the appeal proposals accord with the development plan. 19. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development accords overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan. I have identified no material considerations which would justify refusing to grant planning permission. The SAC 20. Having reached the conclusion that the appeal proposal could be granted in terms of policy, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) require that, where a project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site the competent authority shall make an "appropriate assessment" of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. I consider that this applies here, and that I should make such an assessment prior to deciding to grant consent. Having done so, I have concluded that taking account of the measures to protect the qualifying interest of the SAC contained in the conditions which should be imposed on the development, there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. My note of the appropriate assessment is attached to this decision as Annex C. Conditions 21. I have imposed the conditions suggested by the council, to which I have made a number of minor adjustments, bearing in mind the legal and policy principles laid out in Circular 4/1998. These are laid out in Annex B to this notice. I have deleted the council’s proposed condition 12 as unnecessary and irrelevant to planning, as the financial implications of any adjustment to infrastructure is regulated elsewhere and is a matter for negotiation between the developer and the provider. I have also imposed the conditions suggested by NatureScot which require the exact identification of the ownership boundaries on the ground, and the design and prior approval of a 15 metre buffer zone to ensure that the development results in a reinforced and more clearly defined boundary between the site and the SAC, and to support the protection of the special interests of the SAC. The appellant has suggested that their proposals for a retaining wall should be sufficient protection, but in view of the importance of protecting the qualifying interest of the SAC, I consider that a 15 metre buffer zone should be retained within the appeal site, and that detailed planting proposals should be submitted for the council’s approval in consultation with NatureScot. As mentioned above, there has been some evidence that the appeal site or part of it has previously been utilised either for plant nursery buildings or possible raised beds or cloches. The glasshouses and agricultural practices of the Clyde Valley nurseries in the 1950s and 60s could potentially have used materials now regarded as contaminants, such as asbestos or other chemicals. I consider that it is necessary to impose the council’s 271
Page 272
PPA-380-2100 6 usual condition requiring a preliminary ground survey and consequential action if contaminants are found. 22. I have considered all the other matters raised by the appellant and the council, but there are none which would lead me to different conclusions. Frances M McChlery Reporter Advisory notes 1. Notice of the start of development: The person carrying out the development must give advance notice in writing to the planning authority of the date when it is intended to start. Failure to do so is a breach of planning control. It could result in the planning authority taking enforcement action (See sections 27A and 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)). 2. Notice of the completion of the development: As soon as possible after it is finished, the person who completed the development must write to the planning authority to confirm the position (See section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)). 3. Display of notice: A notice must be displayed on or near the site while work is being carried out. The planning authority can provide more information about the form of that notice and where to display it (See section 27C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Act (as amended) and Schedule 7 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013). 272
Page 273
PPA-380-2100 7 Annex A Drawings defining the consent • Location plan: L(21)02 Rev E • Existing Site plan: L(00)01 • Proposed Plans and elevations: L(21)01 Rev B • Garage layout: L(21)04 • Proposed site sections: L(21)03 Rev C 273
Page 274
PPA-380-2100 8 Annex B Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of grant of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). 2. No development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the council as planning authority. Such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the council's Developer Design Guidance (May 2020) and shall include the following signed appendices: C: 'Sustainable Drainage Design Compliance certificate', D: 'Sustainable Drainage Design Independent Check Certificate' ;and E: 'Confirmation of Future Maintenance of Sustainable Drainage Apparatus'. The development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved in writing by the council. Reason: To ensure that the disposal of surface water from the site is dealt with in a safe and sustainable manner, to return it to the natural water cycle with minimal adverse impact on people and the environment and to alleviate the potential for on-site and off-site flooding. 3. The dwellinghouse shall not be occupied until the developer exhibits to the council a written agreement from SEPA that the site can be served by a sewerage scheme in accordance with relevant standards and regulations. Reason: To ensure that the development is served by an appropriate effluent disposal system. 4. Before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2.0 metres by 95 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided to the north of the vehicular access, and a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 65 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided to the right of the vehicular access, as indicated on the approved Site Plan and everything exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.9 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines. Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety. 5. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, 3 parking spaces (all individual parking spaces to be 3.0m x 6.0 modules) shall be laid out, constructed, and thereafter maintained to the specification of the council as roads and planning authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site. 6. Prior to the commencement of works on site an Energy Statement detailing the following points shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the council: a) the total predicted energy requirements and CO2 emissions of the development, clearly illustrating the additional 15% reduction beyond the 2007 building regulations CO2 standard; 274
Page 275
PPA-380-2100 9 b) a schedule of proposed on-site zero and low carbon energy technologies to be included in the development and their respective energy contributions and carbon savings; c) an indication of the location and design of the on-site energy technologies; and d) a maintenance programme for the on-site zero and low carbon energy technologies to be incorporated. The approved on-site zero and low carbon energy technologies shall be fully installed and operational prior to the occupation of any approved buildings, and shall thereafter be maintained, and shall remain fully operational, in accordance with the approved maintenance programme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the council. Reason: These details have not been provided or approved and are required to ensure the sustainability of the proposals and the minimisation of any greenhouse gas emissions. 7. Before any work starts on site, the fence between the land owned by NatureScot and the applicant must be moved to the correct location according to the title plan reference LAN133266, dated 29/10/2009 to the satisfaction of the council. The line of the new boundary fence should be measured and marked on the ground by a qualified chartered surveyor (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) before it is erected. Reason: To define the site boundaries, and to ensure that there is no detrimental impact upon the adjacent Clyde Valley Woods SAC. 8. No work may commence on site until a further site plan (“the buffer zone plan”) has been submitted and approved in writing by the council in consultation with NatureScot. The objectives of the buffer zone shall be to ensure the protection of the Clyde Valley Woods SAC woodland habitat, including root protection. The buffer zone plan shall show the location, extent and details of a 15 metre buffer zone reserved from all built development within the site. The buffer zone plan shall show details of all proposed planting within the zone including species, which shall be of local provenance, and include details of the measures for the long term maintenance and replanting of any trees lost. The buffer zone plan shall give details of all measures to protect the integrity of the buffer zone and the SAC during the construction process. In particular a) No pipe work or infrastructure should be put in the buffer zone. b) The buffer zone should be demarcated with a barrier, prior to works on site starting, to ensure that machinery, materials and equipment are not stored in the buffer zone, and that other aspects of the development proposal do not impinge upon the buffer zone. c) The buffer zone should be permanently demarcated within the site by the erection of fencing or planting of hedging prior to the house being occupied. d) Best practice pollution prevention guidance shall be adhered to by during construction, so that dust, chemicals and site waste do not have a negative impact on the SAC. e) Any imported soil should be certified free from contaminants and suitable for the intended end use. f) Adequate provision for site litter collection and its careful disposal should be provided. Reason: To define the site boundaries, and to ensure that there is no detrimental impact upon the adjacent SAC. 9. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details of measures to facilitate the provision of full fibre broadband to serve the development, including details of 275
Page 276
PPA-380-2100 10 appropriate digital infrastructure and a timescale for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the council unless otherwise agreed in writing with the applicant. The approved measures shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed implementation timescale. Reason: To ensure the provision of digital infrastructure to serve the development. 10. That no dwellinghouses shall be occupied until the developer provides a written agreement from Scottish Water that the site can be served by a water scheme constructed to the specification and satisfaction of Scottish Water as the Water Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is served by an appropriate water supply. 11. That prior to the commencement of works, details and locations of electrical car charging points on site shall be submitted for the written approval of the council. Prior to the completion of the development the approved charging points shall be installed, available for use and thereafter maintained. Reason: To ensure facilities for recharging electrical cars are available. 12. (a) Prior to any work taking place on site the applicant shall undertake a comprehensive site investigation, carried out to the appropriate phase level, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The investigation shall be completed in accordance with the advice given in the following: (i) Planning Advice Note 33 (2000) and Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995); (ii) Contaminated Land Report 11 - 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) - issued by DEFRA and the Environment Agency; (iii) BS 10175:2001 - British Standards institution 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice'. (b) If the Phase 1 investigation indicates any potential pollution linkages, a Conceptual Site Model must be formulated and these linkages must be subjected to risk assessment. If a Phase 2 investigation is required, then a risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages using site specific assessment criteria will require to be submitted. (c) If the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risks, a detailed remediation strategy will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No works other than investigative works shall be carried out on site prior to receipt of the Council's written approval of the remediation plan. Reason: To avoid unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure that the land is remediated and made suitable for its proposed use. 276
Page 277
PPA-380-2100 11 Annex C Habitats Regulations Appraisal Legislation 1. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) require that, where a project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), the competent authority shall make an "appropriate assessment" of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. The process for determining whether an appropriate assessment is required, together with the appropriate assessment itself, where necessary, is known as 'Habitats Regulations Appraisal' (HRA). This document records the results of the HRA I have undertaken, as the competent authority, to assist with the decision on this appeal. 2. NatureScot, the appropriate conservation body, have provided advice and guidance on the proposal and its implications to the local planning authority, and while considering the appeal I consulted them further before preparing this HRA. The HRA incorporates their advice and the information they have provided. The project 3. The project is the proposed construction of a detached house and domestic garage to be set in garden ground, on land previously used as horse pasture and prior to that as a plant and vegetable nursery. The land is referred to as “the appeal site’. The appeal site is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Clyde Valley Woods Special Area Of Conservation (the “SAC.”) 4. The project is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the Clyde Valley Woods SAC. Other plans or projects with potential cumulative effects 5. Three other detached houses in gardens have been constructed over the past 10 years on the north western, western and south western boundaries of the appeal site, one of which resulted in encroachment into the then boundaries of the SAC. An older house lies on the north eastern boundary of the site. The European site 6. The European site is the Clyde Valley Woods Special Area Of Conservation (SAC), designated on 17 March 2005. The ‘Qualifying Interests’ for which the site is designated are Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines, (a priority habitat) for which the common name is “Mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes” The conservation objectives of the European Site 7. The conservation objectives for the SAC are as follows. 1. To ensure that the qualifying features of the Clyde Valley Woods SAC are in a favourable condition and make an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status. 277
Page 278
PPA-380-2100 12 2. To ensure that the integrity of Clyde Valley Woods SAC is maintained by meeting objectives 2a, 2b and 2c, which are 2a. Maintain the extent and distribution of the habitat within the site, 2b. Maintain the structure, function and supporting processes of the habitat, and 2c. Maintain the distribution and viability of typical species of the habitat. Potential effects on the European site 8. Having regard to the conservation objectives, including the measures required to maintain the integrity of the SAC, I consider that the appeal proposal may have a significant effect on the ‘mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes’ qualifying interest of the site. Earthworks, soil excavation and construction work taking place within the appeal site is likely to result in damage to tree roots and thus to the woodland features of the SAC. There has been some uncertainty in the past about the location of the landownership boundaries adjacent to the boundary of the SAC. If the uncertainty about the location of the SAC boundary is not resolved, and the works are not appropriately managed to avoid adverse effects, works could be undertaken in within or affecting the SAC. Cumulative effects 9. There have been previous instances of work taking place within the SAC on neighbouring sites, due to lack of awareness of the boundary of the SAC. Measures to address potential adverse effects. 10. NatureScot, (who is also the landowner of the SAC) has advised that the precise location of the landownership/SAC boundary should be established through professional survey, and that a 15 metres buffer zone within the appeal site adjacent to the SAC boundary be recognised and protected through planning conditions from all development or disturbance from building operations. The buffer zone should be planted and maintained with suitable species agreed with the council in consultation with NatureScot. I have decided that conditions to this effect should be imposed on the appeal proposal. Conclusion 11. I therefore conclude that, with mitigation measures in place through planning conditions, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. Frances M McChlery Reporter 278
Page 279
Further Representations Further Representations From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Dr Y Davies Appendix 6 4h 279
Page 280
280
Page 281
Reference no. P/24/0697 Statement of Observations Date 7 January 2025 Planning proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works Location: Braidlea Cottage Scrogton Road Douglas West Lanark ML11 0RW Notice of Review – Braidlea Cottage Planning appeal - Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works (P/24/0697) 1 Planning Background 1.1 Thomson Hunter Associates submitted a planning application (reference: P/24/0697) on 4 June 2025 to South Lanarkshire Council for the erection of a dwellinghouse, detached garage and associated works on land at Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark. After due consideration of the application in terms of the Development Plan and all other material planning considerations, planning application P/24/06987 was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 11 October 2024 for the reasons listed in the decision notice. 1.2 The report of handling dated 1 October 2024 explains in detail all material planning considerations and the reasons/justification for the decision. The reasons for refusal are listed in the decision notice which along with the Report of Handling are available elsewhere in the papers accompanying the Notice of Review. 2 Assessment against the development plan and other relevant policies 2.1 Under 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 the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 29th March 2021) and National Planning Framework 4 (which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on the 8th of November 2022 and adopted by Scottish Ministers on 13th February 2023). Section 24(3) of the 1997 Act confirms that 4h 281
Page 282
if there is an inconsistency between NPF4 policies and a Local Development Plan which was adopted before the 13th February 2023, then the policies in NPF4 prevail. 2.2 The delegated report for application P/24/0697 sets out the relevant policies within the Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4 and assesses the proposals against them. It is therefore not intended to replicate the assessment again within this statement of observations. The application was considered contrary to Policies 2 and 14 of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 2, 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2021). 2.3 It should be noted that the appellant’s statement of case comments that the historical planning consent CL/14/0177 was initiated and is therefore a material planning consideration. The Council contends this because the permission lapsed in 2017 with none of the suspensive conditions discharged. It is therefore not a material planning consideration. 2.4 As part of the planning application process, statutory neighbour notification was carried out. In response 2 letters of objection were received. These objections were material to the assessment of the application and provide a broad illustration of the views held by a neighbour adjoining the site. The Report of Handling concisely summarises the issues raised and provides an appropriate planning response. 3 Conclusion 3.1 As required by planning law planning application P/24/0697 has been assessed in terms of the development plan and all other material considerations. In this respect the delegated report of handling provides a detailed summary of all relevant considerations and a reasoned justification as to why the appeal proposal does not accord with both National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 and Local Development Plan policy. 3.2 In very simplistic terms, the proposed development fails to adhere to the provisions of National Planning Framework 4, with specific regard to Policies 14, 16 and 17. In addition, the proposal fails to comply with Policy 4 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Therefore, the proposal cannot be accepted in principle. 3.3 Given the above, it is respectfully requested that the Planning Local Review Body dismiss the applicants request to overturn the refusal of planning permission. 282
Page 283
Section 43B of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 restricts the introduction of new material in review proceedings - text has been redacted from this representation as it refers to a matter that was not before the officer who dealt with the planning application 283
Page 284
284
Page 285
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representations Submitted by an Interested Party and Planning and Regulated Services in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 4i 285
Page 286
286
Page 287
From: To: McLeod, Stuart Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - P/24/0697 - Braidlea Cottage, Scrogton Road, Douglas West, Lanark Date: 05 February 2025 16:58:27 Attachments: image003.png Outlook-vnoityc0.png Dear Mr McLeod Thank you for sending the representations received to the Notice of Review in respect of Mr and Mrs Guy's application for a dwellinghouse at Braidlea. I have set out some comments on each below which I trust will be taken into account and reported to the members of the Local Review Body. SLC Planning and Regulatory Services Statement of Observation, 7th January 2025 1. Firstly, it is very disappointing that the statement of response by the Council's planning service has a number of factual inaccuracies. This, together with the brevity of the response (see point 3 below) demonstrates that little time or consideration has been taken in responding to the issues raised for the LRB. As the Council is aware, both from the application and the LRB notice of review, Mr and Mrs Guy have invested a substantial amount of their savings to build a new family home. The outcome of this process is of great importance to them and will have significant personal consequences. It is not unreasonable to expect that that the valid points raised in this case would be handled and responded to more carefully by the Planning Service to assist an informed decision by the LRB. 2. Inaccuracies / corrections are: a. Paragraph 1.1 - the application was submitted on 4th June 2024, not 2025. The planning application reference is P/24/0697, not P/24/06987. b. Paragraph 2.2 - the wrong policies have been referred as the reasons for refusal. The report of handling makes no assessment of the proposal against NPF4 policy 2, SALDP2 policies 2 (climate change) or 3 (urban areas and settlements). It does refer to SALDP2 policies 5 (development management) and DM1 (new development design) in the report, but finds no concerns with these policies. This is probably a cut and paste mistake, but as per point 1 above is worrying and indicative of there being a lack of attention to properly considering the concerns raised. 3. There is absolutely no information in the response to explain the Planning Service's response to the applicant's reasons for review. It is very brief and generic and simply refers the LRB back to the original assessment in the report of handling. This original assessment in the report of handling has been criticised, in detail, in our submission. It would be reasonable to expect the points made are responded to by the Planning Service to assist the LRB in making a decision. As no response to any of the reasons has been provided, we can only assume this is an implicit 4i 287
Page 288
acceptance of our case because they cannot reasonably be rebutted. If any further comments are provided to this email or the Statement of Reasons, we would wish the opportunity to comment prior to the LRB meeting. We wish to reiterate: a. The application does comply with the terms of the development plan when it is read together. It complies with National Planning Policy 4 for a rural house on a brownfield site. SLC Planning Service has accepted that it is brownfield in the Report of Handling (paragraph 3.3). The reason given for it not according with NPF4 policy 17 on brownfield sites is because the Planning Service considers there is no evidence that the land could not return to a natural state without intervention. The site is visibly in a poor state with disturbed ground conditions arising from the former kennels. The previous owner of the site has confirmed to Mr and Mrs Guy that over the years the area was difficult to manage for grazing and tree planting due to the extensive remains of the kennels bases and foundations and service pipes. The site photographs submitted to assist the LRB clearly demonstrate the rubble remnants and poor drainage. b. The site is in effect the Council's 'poster child' for the SALDP2 policy on gap sites as it is illustrated as an example in the plan. The response from the Planning Service does not dispute this, and the Report of Handling accepts that the proposal complies with SALDP2 Policy GBRA8 on gap sites. We have set out a clear case that the aims, objectives and policies of NPF4 and SALDP2 on rural housing development are not incompatible. 4. The only specific point made in the response is the statement that the historical planning consent CL/14/0177 is "not a material planning consideration" because the Planning Service views it as lapsed. We offer two comments in response to this: a. On the validity of the consent, the Report of Handling states "whilst there is a notification from 2016 that they intended to initiate development, there is nothing in our records to demonstrate that the suspensive conditions were discharged, or a legal site start agreed". It is acknowledged that the Planning Service has stated it has no records. The previous owner of the site has strongly confirmed to Mr and Mrs Guy that they were advised by the planning officer in 2016 that the planning consent was being implemented when they started work on the access road. It is submitted that this position is, at best, unclear and unconfirmed. b. However, and importantly, it is absolutely disputed that a previous planning permission is "not a material planning consideration" if it is lapsed. The 'planning history' of a site is a well accepted material consideration in practice and law (as re-affirmed in Circular 03/22 Development Management Procedures). Planning history is not solely limited to permissions which are still valid. Indeed it is normal practice in officer reports to summarise the whole planning history of a site and take those into account in reaching a recommendation. The correct approach is to take the whole planning history into account as a consideration, but assess what weight to attribute to it. 288
Page 289
That assessment may include how circumstances have changed including the development plan. As has been made clear in this case, the characteristics of the site which led to the previous approval for a house on a gap site have not changed, and the application does accord with the development plan. It is our strongly held view that this should be given significant weight in the overall decision. Neighbouring Resident 1. 2. With regards the statement "we understand that the fundamental principle of the development has been deemed to be unacceptable", we would comment that this is clearly not the case considering the site has previously benefited from planning permission for a house. We have explained why the Planning Service's assessment is disagreed and that the application is in compliance with the development plan. I trust the above will be taken into account. Please do contact me should you require anything further. Kind regards, Gillian Baillie, MRTPI Director Tel: +44 (0)7800 802534 www.gbplanning.co.uk This email has been sent on behalf of Gillian Baillie Planning Limited, a limited company registered in Scotland under number SC778743 and having its registered address at 14 Prestwick Wynd, Troon KA10 7GH. The email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and delete it from your computer. Section 43B of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 restricts the introduction of new material in review proceedings - text has been redacted from this representation as it refers to a matter that was not before the officer who dealt with the planning application 289
Page 290
290