Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 04/09/2023
South Lanarkshire Council · 4 September 2023
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 4 September 2023 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, 25 August 2023 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, 04 September 2023 Time: 10:30 Venue: Hybrid - Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf. Yours sincerely Cleland Sneddon Chief Executive Members Richard Nelson (Chair), Gerry Convery (Depute Chair), Alex Allison, Colin Dewar, Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Elise Frame, Mark Horsham, Lesley McDonald, Norman Rae, Graham Scott Substitutes Robert Brown, Maureen Devlin, Grant Ferguson, Alistair Fulton, Graeme Horne, Ross Lambie, Monique McAdams, 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 7 August 2023 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 3 - 8 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case of P/22/1355 for Change of Use of Agricultural Land to Private Garden Ground Report dated 25 August 2023 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 9 - 12 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form 13 - 26 3b Appendix 2 Report of Handling 27 - 34 3c Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan 35 - 44 3d Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal 45 - 52 3e Appendix 5 Notice of Review 53 - 64 3f Appendix 6 Further Representation 65 - 74 3g Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representation 75 - 78 Urgent Business 4 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Stuart McLeod Clerk Telephone: 07385 370 117 Clerk Email: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 2
Page 3
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of meeting held via Confero and in Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 7 August 2023 Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Maureen Devlin (substitute for Councillor Graham Scott), Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Councillor Mark Horsham, Councillor Lesley McDonald, Councillor Norman Rae Councillors' Apologies: Councillor Mary Donnelly, Councillor Graham Scott Attending Community and Enterprise Resources J Wright, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources M Cannon, Legal Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body; S Jessup, Administration Assistant; S McLeod, Administration Officer 1 Declaration of Interests No interests were declared. 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 24 April 2023 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The Committee decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 3 Review of Case – Application P/22/0281 for Erection of 2-Storey Rear Extension with Associated Alterations and the Formation of a Roof Terrace at 75 Kirk Street, Strathaven A report dated 28 July 2023 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/22/0281 by W Watson for the erection of a 2-storey rear extension with associated alterations and the formation of a roof terrace at 75 Kirk Street, Strathaven. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation site photographs and location plan decision notice 2 3
Page 4
notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested a site inspection and further written submissions, however, on the basis of the above, the PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application taken under review. In reviewing the case, the PLRB considered:- the information submitted by all parties the relevant policies contained in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2:- Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking Policy 14 – Natural and Historic Environment Policy DM2 – House Extensions and Alterations Policy NHE6 – Conservation Areas the relevant policy contained in the National Planning Framework 4 which had been adopted on 13 February 2023 and formed part of the statutory development plan:- Policy 16 – Quality Homes Following its review of the information and after discussion, the PLRB concluded that there was adequate justification in terms of Policies 5, 14, DM2 and NHE6 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 and Policy 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 for the application to be granted on the grounds that the proposal was not overtly out of character with surrounding properties which also had extensions to their roof spaces. The PLRB then considered appropriate conditions to be attached to the planning consent. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/22/0281 by W Watson for the erection of a 2-storey rear extension with associated alterations and the formation of a roof terrace at 75 Kirk Street, Strathaven be reversed and that planning permission be granted for the proposal subject to the conditions specified by the PLRB, attached as Appendix 1 to this minute. 4 Review of Case – Application P/23/0156 for Erection of New Roof with Increased Ridge Height to Facilitate Second Floor of Accommodation, Installation of Front and Rear Dormers and Erection of Balcony at Sion, 47 Burnblea Street, Hamilton A report dated 28 July 2023 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a request for a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/23/0156 by J Peeka for the erection of a new roof with increased ridge height to facilitate second floor of accommodation, installation of front and rear dormers and erection of a balcony at Sion, 47 Burnblea Street, Hamilton. 4
Page 5
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 site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review submission from Planning and Regulatory Services following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the 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 Legal Adviser advised on the following procedural matters:- the PLRB would normally have the power to uphold, reverse or vary the Planning Authority’s decision, however, it was not advisable to uphold the decision in this case as the decision notice contained the following errors:- no reasons for refusal had been provided reasons for the decision had referred to Policies 1 and 2 of National Planning Framework 4 in error to uphold the original decision in this case would effectively re-issue the erroneous decision notice given the above, the options available to the PLRB were to reverse the decision by granting the application, with or without conditions, or vary the decision by refusing the application for different reasons to those stated in the original decision notice The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested a site inspection, however, on the basis of the above, the PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. In reviewing the case, the PLRB considered:- the information submitted by all parties the relevant policies contained in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2:- Policy 3 – General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking Policy DM2 – House Extensions and Alterations the relevant policy contained in the National Planning Framework 4 which had been adopted on 13 February 2023 and formed part of the statutory development plan:- Policy 16 – Quality Homes Following its review of the information and after discussion, the PLRB concluded that there was adequate justification in terms of Policies 3, 5 and DM2 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 and Policy 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 for the application to be granted on the grounds that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties or result in a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties. The PLRB then considered appropriate conditions to be attached to the planning consent. 5
Page 6
The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/23/0156 by J Peeka for the erection of a new roof with increased ridge height to facilitate second floor of accommodation, installation of front and rear dormers and erection of a balcony at Sion, 47 Burnblea Street, Hamilton be reversed and that planning permission be granted for the proposal subject to the condition specified by the PLRB, attached as Appendix 2 to this minute. 5 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 6
Page 7
Application P/22/0281 - Conditions and Reasons Appendix 1 Erection of 2 Storey Rear Extension with Associated Alterations and the Formation of a Roof Terrace at 75 Kirk Street, Strathaven 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. That the 1.8m protective barrier with frosted glazing as shown on drawing number 21070-AA- 053 shall be maintained as such for the lifetime of the development, hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of protecting neighbouring amenity. 7
Page 8
Application P/23/0156 - Condition and Reason Appendix 2 Erection of New Roof with Increased Ridge Height to Facilitate Second Floor of Accommodation, Installation of Front and Rear Dormers and Erection of Balcony at Sion, 47 Burnblea Street, Hamilton 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). 8
Page 9
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 4 September 2023 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/22/1355 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to present the information currently available to allow a review of the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, on the following application:- [purpose] 1.2. Summary Application Information Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Applicant: S Davies Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground Location: Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH Council Area/Ward: 2 Clydesdale North 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review [1recs] 3 9
Page 10
3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to Area Committees or 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:- X Further written submissions 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) 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. 10
Page 11
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 1 further representation was received, a Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer on the applicant’s Notice of Review, in the course of the 14 day period from the date on which notification of the request for a review of the case was given. This is attached as Appendix 6. 6.2 The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representation received. Comments from the applicant’s agent are contained in the submission attached as Appendix 7. Paul Manning Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 25 August 2023 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) E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 11
Page 12
12
Page 13
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 13
Page 14
14
Page 15
3a 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
17
Page 18
18
Page 19
19
Page 20
20
Page 21
21
Page 22
22
Page 23
23
Page 24
24
Page 25
25
Page 26
26
Page 27
Report of Handling Report dated 17 March 2023 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2 3b 27
Page 28
28
Page 29
Reference no. P/22/1355 Delegated Report Date Planning proposal: Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground. Location: Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road Kirkfieldbank. Lanark, ML11 9UH Application Type : Detailed planning application Applicant : Mr Stephen Paul Davies Location : Ard Taigh Kilbank Road Kirkfieldbank Lanark ML11 9UH Decision: Other action/notes: (1) Report by: Area Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: 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 NHE16: Landscape National Planning Framework 4 (adopted 2023) Policy 1: Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises Policy 2: Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Policy 17: Rural Homes 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 No Consultations Required Representation(s): ► 0 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters 3b 29
Page 30
Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to form a private garden ground at Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road in Kirkfieldbank. The proposed site is located on agricultural adjacent to an existing dwelling approved in 2019 (P/19/0615). 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Statutory neighbour notification was undertaken in respect of this application, and no letters of representation has been received because of this publicity. No formal consultations were required to be undertaken in respect of this proposal. 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 (SLLDP2) (adopted 2021) and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (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 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. 3.2 The application site is existing agricultural land located in the rural area and designated as part of a Special Landscape Area within the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2021. 3.3 Policy 17 of The National Planning framework states a development proposal for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development: i. is on a site allocated for housing within the LDP; ii. reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention; iii. reuses a redundant or unused building; iv. is an appropriate use of a historic environment asset or is appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets; v. is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croft, and there is an essential need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work; vi. is for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding; 30
Page 31
vii. is for the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; the scale of which is in keeping with the character and infrastructure provision in the area; or viii. reinstates a former dwelling house or is a one-for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. 3.4 Policy NHE16 – Landscape advises that development proposals within Special Landscape Areas will only be permitted where they can be accommodated without having an unacceptable significant adverse effect on the landscape character, scenic interest and special qualities and features for which the area has been designated. All proposed development should take into account the detailed guidance contained in the South Lanarkshire Landscape Character Assessment 2010. The site falls within the Rolling Farmland landscape type in the Middle Clyde Valley where landscape planning and management should aim to conserve the open and undeveloped character and profiles of the foothills and the quality of the panoramic views. Built development on the open hillsides should generally be resisted. 3.5 In view of the above, it is concluded that the proposed extension of garden ground into the protected special landscape land within the rural area is inappropriate and does not comply with the requirement of applicable policies within National Planning Framework 4 or the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. It is therefore recommended that permission is Refused. 4 Reason for decision 4.4 The proposal is contrary to Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) and Policy 17 of the NPF4. In that the change of use from agricultural land to private garden space introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity of the area and that it would conflict with the land use set out in the SLC2. Delegating officer: David Russell Date: 17/3/2023 Previous references None List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated ► Consultations No Consultations required. ► Representations 31
Page 32
Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Stuart Connolly, Planning officer, Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Phone: 07385516139 Email: stuart.connolly@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 32
Page 33
Planning Application Application number: P/22/1355 Reasons for refusal 01. The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy 17 of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) in that it seeks to use land in the rural area for housing purposes in a location where that site has not been allocated for residential development in the Local Development Plan. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) in that the proposal would detract from the established character of the surrounding locale and adversely impact upon the established amenity of the area. Reason(s) for decision The proposal is contrary to Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) and Policy 17 of the NPF4. In that the change of use from agricultural land to private garden space introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity of the area and that it would conflict with the land use set out in the SLC2. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status Location Plan A Refused 33
Page 34
34
Page 35
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3c 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
Photo 1 3c 37
Page 38
Photo 2 38
Page 39
Photo 3 39
Page 40
Photo 4 40
Page 41
Photo 5 41
Page 42
42
Page 43
3c 43
Page 44
44
Page 45
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3d 45
Page 46
46
Page 47
Floor 6, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA Email stuart.connolly@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07385516139 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Mr Stephen Paul Davies Ard Taigh Kilbank Road Kirkfieldbank Lanark ML11 9UH Our Ref: P/22/1355 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Stuart Connolly Date: 24 March 2023 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground. Site address: Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH, Application no: P/22/1355 I would advise you that the above application was refused by the Council and I enclose the decision notice which sets out the reasons for refusal. Please note that the Council does not issue paper plans with the decision notice. The application is refused in accordance with the plans and any other documentation listed in the reasons for refusal imposed on the accompanying decision notice and which can be viewed using the Council’s online planning application search at https://publicaccess.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/online-applications/ If you consider that you can overcome the reasons for refusal and that it is not the principle of the development that is unacceptable, you may submit an amended application. If you do amend your proposals and re-apply within one year of this refusal, then you will not have to pay a fee, provided the proposal is of the same character or description as the application which has just been refused. As your application has been refused, you may appeal against the decision within 3 months of the date of the decision notice. The attached notes explain how you may appeal. Should you have any enquiries relating to the refusal of your application or a potential amended submission, please contact Stuart Connolly on 07385516139 Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Enc: 3d 47
Page 48
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr Stephen Paul Davies Per: Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH, With reference to your application received on 21.09.2022 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground. Site location: Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH, 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: 24th March 2023 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/22/1355 48
Page 49
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/22/1355 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy 17 of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) in that it seeks to use land in the rural area for housing purposes in a location where that site has not been allocated for residential development in the Local Development Plan. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) in that the proposal would detract from the established character of the surrounding locale and adversely impact upon the established amenity of the area. Reason(s) for decision The proposal is contrary to Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) and Policy 17 of the NPF4 in that the change of use from agricultural land to private garden ground detrimentally impacts upon the special landscape character of the area and that which would conflict with the rural area designation set out in the development plan. 49
Page 50
Notes to applicant Application number: P/22/1355 Important The following notes do not form a statutory part of this decision notice. However, it is recommended that you study them closely as they contain other relevant information. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status Location Plan A Refused 50
Page 51
COMMUNITY AND ENTERPRISE RESOURCES Executive Director David Booth Planning and Economic Development Important notes 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 (Corporate Resources) Council Headquarters Almada Street Hamilton ML3 0AA To obtain the appropriate forms: Administrative Services at the above address. Telephone: 01698 454108 E-mail: pauline.macrae@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 S Davies Appendix 5 3e 53
Page 54
54
Page 55
Notice of Review Form Page 1 of 4 For official use: NOR/ _ _ / _ _ / _ _ _ Date received by PLRB: _ _ / _ _ / _ _ Notice of Review Under Section 43A(8) of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) in respect of decisions on local developments The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 This notice requires to be served on the Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of the decision notice or from the date of expiry of the period allowed for determining the application which is set as 2 months following the validation date of the application IMPORTANT: Please read and follow the guidance notes provided when completing this form. Failure to supply all the relevant information could invalidate your Notice of Review. Please complete in BLOCK CAPITALS Applicant(s) Name: Mr Stephen Davies Address: Postcode: Ard Taigh Kilbank Rd Kirkfieldbank South Lanarkshire ML11 9UH Contact Telephone 1: Contact Telephone 2: Fax No: E-mail:* Agent (if any) Name: Address: Postcode: Contact Telephone 1: Contact Telephone 2: Fax No: E-mail:* Mark this box to confirm that all contact should be through this representative: * Do you agree to correspondence regarding your review being sent by e-mail? Yes x No Application reference number: P / 2 2 / 1 3 5 5 Site address: Ard Taigh, Kilbank Rd, Kirkfieldbank, South Lanarkshire, ML11 9UH. Description of proposed development: Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground. Validation date of application: Date of decision (if any): 3e 55
Page 56
Notice of Review Form Page 2 of 4 Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) X 2. Application for planning permission in principle 3. Further application (including development that has not yet commenced and where a time limit has been imposed; renewal of planning permission; and/or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition) 4. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions Reasons for requesting review 1. Refusal of application by appointed officer X 2. Failure by appointed officer to determine the application within the period allowed for determination of the application 3. Conditions imposed on consent by appointed officer Review procedure In cases where the Planning Local Review Body considers that it has sufficient information, including the Notice of Review, the decision notice, report of handling and any further representations from interested parties, it may, under Regulation 12, proceed to determine the review. It is anticipated that the majority of cases the Planning Local Review Body deals with will fall into this category. The Planning Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable it to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as written submissions, the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Although the Planning Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review, you can indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you consider most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may tick more than one box if you wish the review to be conducted by a combination of procedures. 1. Further written submissions x 3. Site inspection 2. One or more hearing sessions 4. Assessment of review documents only, with no further procedure If you have marked box 1 or 2, please explain here which of the matters (as set out in your statement below) you believe ought to be subject of that procedure, and why you consider further submissions or a hearing are necessary: Improving the clarity of the application. Site inspection In the event that the Local Review Body decides to inspect the review site, in your opinion: 1. Can the site be viewed entirely from public land? Yes No x 2. Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? x If there are reasons why you think the Planning Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: None. 56
Page 57
Notice of Review Form Page 3 of 4 Statement of reasons for requiring the review You must state, in full, why you are requesting a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. Note: you may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is, therefore, essential that you submit with your Notice of Review all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Planning Local Review Body to consider as part of the review. If the Planning Local Review Body issues a notice requesting further information from any other person or body, you will have a period of 14 days in which to comment on any additional matter which has been raised by that person or body. State here the reasons for your Notice of Review and all matters you wish to raise. If necessary, this statement can be continued or provided in full in a separate document. You may also submit additional documentation with this form. See attached letter, plus 5 photographs. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? Yes No x If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising new material, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should now be considered in your review. 57
Page 58
Notice of Review Form Page 4 of 4 List of documents and evidence Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your Notice of Review and intend to rely on in support of your review. Attached letter and 5 photographs. Photo 1. Showing wreckage of original stone wall. Photo 2. Showing dilapidated wire fence with wooden fenceposts. Photo 3. Showing recently harvested field and distance of mown grass from slope. Photo 4. Showing boulder strewn slope which cannot be part of harvest area. Photo 5. Showing existing rear garden area without as yet timber frames for wild flowers. Note: A copy of the Notice of Review, the review documents and any notice of the procedure of the review will be made available for inspection by prior appointment (Phone: 08457 406080) at the office of Planning and Building Standards Services, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB until such time as the review is determined. It may also be made available on the Council’s website. Checklist Please mark the appropriate boxes to confirm that you have provided all supporting documents and evidence relevant to your review: x Full completion of all parts of this form x Statement of your reasons for requiring a review x 2 copies of all documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on (eg planning application form, plans and drawings, decision notice or other documents) which are now the subject of this review. Note. Where the review relates to a further application, eg renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice from that earlier consent. Declaration I the applicant/agent [delete as appropriate] hereby serve notice on the planning authority to review the application as set out on this form and in the supporting documents. Signed: Steve Davies Date: 22nd June 2023 This form and 2 copies of all supporting documents should be sent to:- Planning and Building Standards Services Community and Enterprise Resources, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Email: planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 08457 406080 For more information or if you want this information in a different format or language, please phone 01698 455379 or send email to planning@southlanarkshire.gov.uk For official use Date stamp) 58
Page 59
Mr and Mrs Stephen and Yvette Davies Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Ard Taigh Hadrian House Kilbank Road Callendar Business Park Kirkfieldbank (Near Lanark) Falkirk South Lanarkshire FK1 1XR. ML11 9UH. Date 22nd June 2023. STATEMENT OF APPEAL. Dear Sir, or Madam, There are several reasons for appealing the refusal of planning permission for application P/22/1355 first submitted 21st September 2022 and refused 24th March 2023. Firstly, basic common sense in that it is a reasonable request to allow a new build house to have a rear garden. Every other residential property in the area has a garden, so for us to be allowed to have one would simply align us with all other houses in the area. Prior to the new house, Ard Taigh, being built, a tree survey was required, and this resulted in 15 trees being protected for the duration of the build. The location of these trees resulted in the house being located on the building plot closer to the Western boundary so that the Eastern entrance, through the front door was physically possible. This reduced the remaining plot width at the rear or Western side to approximately three metres, and of course resulted in our planning application to make the area larger and useable as a rear garden. It also begs the question as to why planning permission for a residential property was allowed in the first place if it was not going to be allowed to function in a normal manner. By normal, I mean amenities like all other properties in the area. The metreage affected by the above planning application is in fact sloping ground where the level drops some 1.2 to 1.5 metres across the entire width of the plot. This means that any crop on this agricultural field cannot be planted or harvested here for safety reasons. In addition, over decades there was originally a stone wall running from South to North near the top of this slope, which is now almost completely in ruins resulting in the stones it was built from being strewn over this area. Presumably because of this stone wall collapsing is why a wooden post with wire fencing was installed some 1.2 metres West of the original site of the stone wall. This wire fence was installed so long ago that this has also fallen into disrepair but at least was recognisable and indeed used as the building plot boundary. The planning refusal quotes “4, 5, and NHE 16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development plan 2 (2021) and Policy 17 of the NPF4 in that change of use from agricultural land to private garden ground detrimentally impacts upon the special landscape character of the area and that would conflict with the rural designation set out in the development plan. In the 3rd paragraph I have done my best to accurately describe the state of the ground area where the planning application would change it from agricultural to private garden. Basically, I am trying to change what was a run down, debris strewn area, with the wreckage of two boundaries, one stone, and one a rotten and falling down fence, into a planned and pleasing to the eye area. Our current intention assuming success, is to not have any fencing but to build out of timber, several rectangular frames, fill with soil, and to then plant pollen bearing flowers inside them, to provide improved foraging for the bees from our beehives. I have included 5 photographs of the area in question. 1/ shows the wreckage of the stone wall. 2/ shows the dilapidated wire fence with wooden support posts. 3/ shows the recently harvested field and the berth given by the tractor so as to avoid all the boulders and the slope. The grass closer to the house has been strimmed by me. 4/ shows the slope so that you can see it would be unsafe for the tractor to be on this area. 5/ shows the existing rear garden area, as yet without the timber frames for wild flowers. The application is for 5 metres, but only half of this will be garden. The other 2.5 metres will be the unusable slope where over time we hope to remove the stones and boulders and to simply grass it. We sincerely believe that our application and planned improvements to this 5 metre strip of land will actually make it most certainly more pleasing to the eye, and, to actually attain “A special landscape character” and indeed achieve the aims of the Council Development Plans and Policies. It most certainly will not have a detrimental impact. My request is therefore that this planning application appeal be approved. Yours Sincerely, Mr Stephen Davies. 59
Page 60
Photo 1 60
Page 61
Photo 2 61
Page 62
• ,. ,,.� ... � � � � . � • Photo 3 62
Page 63
Photo 4 63
Page 64
Photo 5 64
Page 65
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 3f 65
Page 66
66
Page 67
STATEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS Notice of Review - Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No. P/22/1355 Proposal - Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground at Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH Appellant: Mr. Stephen Paul Davies 1.0 Planning Background 1.1 The above planning application was submitted to the Council in September 2022. The application was originally made invalid due to the submission being incomplete. Following receipt of additional information, including payment of the appropriate planning fee, the application was validated in November 2022. Following due consideration of the proposal, especially an assessment in terms of the provisions of the development plan, the application was refused consent under delegated powers on the 10th March 2023. The related Report of Handling sets out the planning policy and other material considerations for the decision. The reasons for the refusal are listed in the decision notice. These documents are available elsewhere within the papers. 1.2 The application site is to the west of a detached dwelling located at Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank. The applicant sought planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to extend their private garden ground at Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road in Kirkfieldbank. The site is presently agricultural land adjacent to the appellants dwellinghouse which received consent in 2019 (P/19/0615). The house is a 1.5 storey dwellinghouse with attached double garage. 1.3 The agricultural land owned by the appellant is approximately 40 meters wide by 32.5 meters in depth. Immediately to the east of the house an area 5 meters deep by 32.5m in width would be changed to a private garden. This area is bordered by a road to the south and neighboring agriculture land to the west and north. The application site is further described in the Report of Handling. 1.4 The approved block plan in relation to the original consent for the house is attached as appendix one. It must be highlighted that the approved 3f 67
Page 68
house had a ’rear’ garden generally 7542 mm deep but 31358 mm wide providing over 233 square meters of private rear garden ground. This is an adequate area of garden ground for a detached house. Indeed, in terms of the Councils Residential Design Guide the minimum for detached houses is 70 square meters, albeit this would related to a relatively small house. 1.5 This use of the appeal site as garden ground associated with Ard Taigh was brought to the attention of the planning Department following a complaint. 1.6 The reasons for refusal of application P/22/1355 were as follows; 01. The proposed change of use is contrary to Policy 17 of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) in that it seeks to use land in the rural area for housing purposes in a location where that site has not been allocated for residential development in the Local Development Plan. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) in that the proposal would detract from the established character of the surrounding locale and adversely impact upon the established amenity of the area. 2.0 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 (SLLDP2) (adopted 2021) and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) adopted by Scottish Ministers on 13th February 2023. Section 24(3) of the 1997 Act confirms that 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 application site is agricultural land located in the rural area. It is not part of the approved house curtilage/plot established and authorised by consent P/19/0615. It is also designated as part of a Special Landscape Area within the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2021. 2.3 Policy 17 of The National Planning framework states a development proposal for new homes in rural areas (and by implication increased garden ground) will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development: 68
Page 69
i. is on a site allocated for housing within the LDP; ii. reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention; iii. reuses a redundant or unused building; iv. is an appropriate use of a historic environment asset or is appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets; v. is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croft, and there is an essential need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work; vi. is for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding; vii. is for the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; the scale of which is in keeping with the character and infrastructure provision in the area; or viii. reinstates a former dwelling house or is a one-for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. 2.4 The proposal relates to an increase in the garden area associated with a new house and therefore is essentially residential in nature. The appeal proposal would extend the residential plot into agricultural land without any justification and ultimately would result in the expansion of residential development onto agricultural land/designated countryside. Such an expansion is not on a site identified for housing in the Local Development Plan, re-uses brownfield land (previously developed land) or is an appropriate re-use of a historic environmental asset. In addition, the appeal proposal does not accord with any of the other related policy criteria or considerations listed in paragraph 2.3 above. The appeal proposal is clearly contrary to the requirements of Policy 17. 2.5 Policy NHE16 – Landscape advises that development proposals within Special Landscape Areas will only be permitted where they can be accommodated without having an unacceptable significant adverse effect on the landscape character, scenic interest and special qualities and features for which the area 69
Page 70
has been designated. All development should take into account the detailed guidance contained in the South Lanarkshire Landscape Character Assessment 2010. The site falls within the Rolling Farmland landscape type in the Middle Clyde Valley where landscape planning and management should aim to conserve the open and undeveloped character and profiles of the foothills and the quality of the panoramic views. The expansion of garden ground into such areas will change the landscape character of the area and cannot be supported in planning terms. Indeed, whilst it is acknowledged that the appeal site is relatively small in terms of the wider landscaped area, it is the principle of the development that conflicts with the policy requirements of NHE 16 which aims to protect, conserve and enhance the undeveloped, countryside character of the area. 2.6 In terms of Policy 4 – Greenbelt and Rural Area and Policy 5 – Development Management and Placemaking of the Local Development Plan 2, the appeal proposal cannot be supported. Within the rural area Policy 4 seeks to promote the amenity of the countryside recognizing that both the Greenbelt and Rural Area function primarily for agriculture, recreation and other uses appropriate to the countryside. The expansion of residential curtilages is not an identified function of the rural area. By default, therefore the appeal proposal does not merit support. Furthermore Policy 5 has as an underlying requirement to protect the natural environment. The proposed inclusion of the appeal site within a residential garden area undermines this requirement and if repeated throughout the rural area would seriously erode the character and landscape quality of the rural area. 2.7 In view of the above, it was concluded that the proposed extension of garden ground into the protected special landscape area within the countryside was inappropriate and does not comply with the requirement of the applicable policies within National Planning Framework 4 or the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Accordingly, application P/22/1355 was refused consent. 3.0 Observations on applicants Notice of Review 3.1 The appellant has submitted a statement to support the review. The grounds are summarised below in bold. It must be emphasized however that the statement is somewhat silent in terms of responding to the provisions of the development plan policies against which, by law, the appeal proposal must be considered. 3.2 Firstly, basic common sense in that it is a reasonable request to allow a new build house to have a rear garden. Every other residential property in the area has a garden, so for us to be allowed to have one would simply align us with all other houses in the area. Prior to the new house, 70
Page 71
Ard Taigh, being built, a tree survey was required, and this resulted in 15 trees being protected for the duration of the build. The location of these trees resulted in the house being located on the building plot closer to the Western boundary so that the Eastern entrance, through the front door was physically possible. This reduced the remaining plot width at the rear or Western side to approximately three metres, and of course resulted in our planning application to make the area larger and useable as a rear garden. It also begs the question as to why planning permission for a residential property was allowed in the first place if it was not going to be allowed to function in a normal manner. By normal, I mean amenities like all other properties in the area. Reason: The appellant was the applicant for application P/19/0615. The approved drawings indicate a reasonable and useable rear garden area. If the house has been repositioned contrary to the approved drawings as indicated by the appellant, this would be contrary to the approved drawings. The Drawings for the applications can be reviewed using the links below. P/19/0615 ‘BLOCK PLAN PROPOSED’ and ‘EXISTING BLOCK PLAN’ along with the drawing from the recent applications P/22/1355 & P/22/1656 ‘LOCATION PLAN’. The drawings from all three applications do not show a change in orientation and observations of the land on google earth match the drawings. P/19/0615 | Erection of dwellinghouse | Kirkfield Lodge P/22/1355 | Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground. | Ard Taigh Kilbank 3.3 The metreage affected by the above planning application is in fact sloping ground where the level drops some 1.2 to 1.5 metres across the entire width of the plot. This means that any crop on this agricultural field cannot be planted or harvested here for safety reasons. In addition, over decades there was originally a stone wall running from South to North near the top of this slope, which is now almost completely in ruins resulting in the stones it was built from being strewn over this area. Presumably because of this stone wall collapsing is why a wooden post with wire fencing was installed some 1.2 metres West of the original site of the stone wall. This wire fence was installed so long ago that this has also fallen into disrepair but at least was recognisable and indeed used as the building plot boundary. Reason: The applicant owns the appeal site and further adjoining agricultural land. The fact that an old stone wall and fence has fallen into a state of disrepair is at the owner’s discretion. Indeed, any necessary repairs can be conducted without the need for planning consent if the fence/wall is re-instated 71
Page 72
in a similar manner to the original. Furthermore, the removal of stones can be actioned without consent and even with the change of level highlighted the ground still makes a valuable contribution to the open character of the countryside and surrounding area. In addition, it must be accepted that not all parts of the rural countryside has to be agriculturalyl productive. 3.4 In the 3rd paragraph I have done my best to accurately describe the state of the ground area where the planning application would change it from agricultural to private garden. Basically, I am trying to change what was a run down, debris strewn area, with the wreckage of two boundaries, one stone, and one a rotten and falling down fence, into a planned and pleasing to the eye area. Reason: The appeal site can be improved without the change of use to a private garden as proposed. The land does not need to be left as rundown or a debris strewn area. The appellant is the landowner and has a responsibility to maintain the ground in a reasonable manner. 3.5 The planning refusal quotes “4, 5, and NHE 16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development plan 2 (2021) and Policy 17 of the NPF4 in that change of use from agricultural land to private garden ground detrimentally impacts upon the special landscape character of the area and that would conflict with the rural designation set out in the development plan. Reason: The appellant has made a brief reference to Polices 17 of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) along with policies 4,5 and NHE16 of the Local Development Plan 2. However as highlighted earlier the associated appeal must be determined in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan and the appellant has not substantially elaborated or challenged the assessment and determination of his proposal in terms of the aforementioned policies. 4.0 Conclusion 4.1 In summary, the proposed development does not comply with the provisions of Policy 17 of the adopted National Planning Framework 4. The appeal proposal seeks to use land in the rural area for a purpose related to residential use in a location where the site is not allocated for residential development in the Local Development Plan. 4.2 Furthermore, the proposed development does not comply with the terms of Policies 4, 5 and NHE16 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposal would detract from the established character of the surrounding 72
Page 73
locale and adversely impact upon the established countryside without proper justification. In this respect, the proposal would directly contradict Policies 4, 5 and NHE16. 4.3 The Report of Handling associated with application P/22/1355 provides a detailed assessment of all material planning considerations associated with this appeal. As such, it is clear that the proposal does not comply with the terms of Policy 17 of the National Planning Framework 4 nor Policies 4, 5 NEH16 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. There are no other material planning considerations that would outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. It is a statutory requirement that when making any determination under the Planning Act regard must be had to the development plan, and the determination shall be in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless materials considerations indicate otherwise. 4.4 In conclusion, it is respectfully requested that the Review Board uphold the original decision to refuse consent for the proposed change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground and dismiss this appeal. 73
Page 74
74
Page 75
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representation Submitted by Planning and Regulatory Services in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 3g 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
From – Mr Stephen Paul Davies, To – Mr Stuart McLeod Page 1 of 2. Ard Taigh, South Lanarkshire.gov.uk Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH. Reference Planning Application No. P/22/1355 Proposal – Change of use of agricultural land to private garden ground at Ard Taigh, Kilbank Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9UH. Appellant: Mr Stephen Paul Davies. Rebuttal of Statement of Observations. Response to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 - none. Response to 1.5 - The length of the plot, North to South is I agree 31.358 metres. The depth of the garden is currently 3 metres deep, not 7.542 as claimed in 1.5. If we had 7.542 metres depth there would be no need for any garden extension application. To protect existing mature trees at the rear to both the North and South of the plot we are not and will not in the future be making use of 9 metres to the South, and 9.3 metres to the North as rear garden. This means the current width of the rear garden is 13.058 metres by 3 metres, or 39.174 square metres. If the appeal is successful then it would add 13.058 metres by 2 metres only (The other 3 metres is simply the slope down to the field) or 26.116 square metres. This means that if this appeal is successful then the total rear garden area will be 65.29 square metres, still less than the 70 square metres minimum stated in 1.5. Response to 1.6 – none. Response to 1.7 – Part one. Simple common sense and logic dictate that the proposed change of use cannot be contrary to Policy 17 of the National Planning Framework 4 (2023) or by it’s own definition, their would be no planning approval for the house, Ard Taigh in the first place. Response to 1.7 – Part two. It is nonsensical to suggest that a reasonable sized rear garden to a residential house would detract or adversely impact on the surrounding locale, or established amenity of the area. As with Part one, planning consent for the new house being allowed, destroys the logic of this argument. Response to 2.1. 2.1, and 2.2 – none Response to 2.3 – As above the proposed change to useable garden area is, “Suitably scaled, sited, and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development.” It is perhaps sensible at this point to emphasize that the entire rear garden including the change of use area is to be hard standing with a timber edging, both of which fall within the definition of, “Agricultural.” The only addition to this will be wooden planters at both rear corners holding soil and pollen bearing flowers for our 3 beehives. Response to 2.3, 1 though to 8 – none and indeed not applicable in any sense to this case. Response to 2.4 – See reply to 1.5 3g 77
Page 78
Page 2 of 2 Response to 2.5 – With respect to Policy NHE16. I find myself in total agreement with the description in this section. I would however, query how one is supposed to support these aims if one is not allowed to reside in the area in an acceptable abode including a rear garden, which I notice, every other house in the area already has. Response to 2.6 – The only logical conclusion to this is that nobody should be allowed to live in the area. An obvious nonsense. I therefore query the inclusion of 2.6 in this “Statement of Observations.” Response to 2.7 – This is very simple. If the house complies, then so does a reasonably sized garden. Response to 3.1 through to 3.6 – I am a pensioner in his 70’s and not a qualified planning officer. There is obviously going to be a difference in knowledge area between us. I have attempted to use common sense in my approach to this issue and continue to do so. The house has not been repositioned contrary to approved drawings. If my memory is correct, our architect agreed positioning with the planning department, in respect of taking into account tree locations which needed to be protected. There was no change in orientation. The state of disrepair at the rear of the property was inherited by me upon purchase of the building plot and the adjoining land. Since then the wreckage of the wire fence has been removed and similarly the loose stones and boulders have been dealt with. Use of the slope for agricultural purposes would be unsafe due to the steepness of the slope. Response to 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 – The writer decides to include, Policy 17, National Planning Framework 4, Policies 4, 5, and NHE 16, Local Development Plan 2. I notice he ignores policies which might have the reverse effect, for example “The Honey Bee Health Strategy 2022 – 2032”. This was publicly supported by, Mairi Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands. Who stated “I am delighted to announce the launch and publication of Scotland's second 10-year Honey Bee Health Strategy - - - - My colleagues and I look forward to working with all those who have an interest in honey bee health and other pollinators to achieve this. I cannot help but wonder if examples were cherry picked to aid refusal instead of a more fair and balanced approach. Throughout the entire planning process, from start to finish, a highly respected and hugely experienced professional architect with all associated indemnities etc was totally in control, dealt with all the applications with your planning officers. All appropriate planning approvals were sought and gained throughout the process. During the building process this architect and your planning officers “signed off” the build at each relevant stage. All these professionals concurred at all times. Yours Sincerely, Mr Stephen Paul Davies. 78