Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 21/11/2022
South Lanarkshire Council · 21 November 2022
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 21 November 2022 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, 11 November 2022 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, 21 November 2022 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 Cleland Sneddon Chief Executive Members Richard Nelson (Chair), Gerry Convery (Depute Chair), Alex Allison, Mary Donnelly, Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Mark Horsham, Lesley McDonald, Norman Rae, Dr Ali Salamati, 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 10 October 2022 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 5 - 10 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case - P/20/0547 for Erection of Boundary Fence and Associated Change of Use From Privately Owned Open Space to Private Garden Ground (Retrospective) at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride Report dated 8 November 2022 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 11 - 14 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/20/0547 15 - 24 3b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/20/0547 25 - 32 3c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/20/0547 33 - 36 3d Appendix 2(c) Representations P/20/0547 37 - 48 3e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/20/0547 49 - 58 3f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/20/0547 59 - 66 3g Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/20/0547 67 - 74 3h Appendix 6 Further Representation P/20/0547 75 - 84 4 Review of Case - P/21/1639 for Erection of Outbuilding Within the Rear Curtilage of End Terrace House and an Associated Change of Use From Private Recreational Garden Space to Commercial Hairdressing Business (Retrospective) at 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton Report dated 8 November 2022 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 85 - 88 4a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/21/1639 89 - 98 4b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/21/1639 99 - 108 4c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/21/1639 109 - 114 4d Appendix 2(c) Representations P/21/1639 115 - 136 4e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/21/1639 137 - 144 4f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/21/1639 145 - 152 4g Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/21/1639 153 - 186 4h Appendix 6 Further Representation P/21/1639 187 - 200 2
Page 3
4i Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representations P/21/1639 201 - 204 5 Review of Case - P/21/0909 for Sub-Division of Garden Ground to Form House Plot For a Two Storey Dwellinghouse (Planning Permission in Principle) at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre Report dated 8 November 2022 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 205 - 208 5a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form P/21/0909 209 - 218 5b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling P/21/0909 219 - 228 5c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses P/21/0909 229 - 244 5d Appendix 2(c) Representations P/21/0909 245 - 248 5e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan P/21/0909 249 - 256 5f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal P/21/0909 257 - 264 5g Appendix 5 Notice of Review P/21/0909 265 - 280 5h Appendix 6 Further Representation P/21/0909 281 - 288 5i Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representations P/21/0909 289 - 292 Urgent Business 6 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 10 October 2022 Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present Councillor Mary Donnelly, Councillor Grant Ferguson (substitute for Councillor Gladys Ferguson- Miller), Councillor Mark Horsham, Councillor Ross Lambie (substitute for Councillor Alex Allison), Councillor Lesley McDonald, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Graham Scott Councillors' Apologies: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Councillor Dr Ali Salamati 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; K McLeod, 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 12 September 2022 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/21/1210 for Erection of an Agricultural Workers’ Dwelling House (Permission in Principle) at Land 475 Metres Southeast of Cobblehaugh Farm Cottage, Cobblehaugh Road, Lanark A report dated 28 September 2022 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/21/1210 by the Firm of Thomas Orr for the erection of an agricultural workers’ dwelling house (permission in principle) at land 475 metres southeast of Cobblehaugh Farm Cottage, Cobblehaugh Road, Lanark. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan 2 5
Page 6
decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submissions from interested parties following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the further submissions received from the interested parties 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:- that comments provided to the Planning Officer by the Council’s Economic Development Team had been included in the submissions to the PLRB, however, in terms of The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, the Economic Development Team was not an interested party and, therefore, had not been invited to submit further representations to the PLRB the Statement of Observations from the Planning Officer, attached at Appendix 6 to the report, stated that the letter received from SAC Consulting, attached at appendices 5 and 7 to the report, was new information and had not been made available prior to the determination of application P/21/1210 that a submission from J Russell, who had submitted an earlier representation in the name of his company, D and M Russell, had been received late in terms of The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, however, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 required that all relevant material planning matters were considered The late submission from J Russell was tabled and the PLRB agreed that the late submission and the letter received from SAC Consulting could be considered in relation to the review. The PLRB heard the Planning Adviser in relation to the case. Following discussion, Councillor Nelson, seconded by Councillor Rae, moved that the review proceed without a site visit, hearing or further written submissions. Councillor McDonald, seconded by Councillor Donnelly, moved as an amendment that a site visit be carried out as part of the review. On a vote being taken using the electronic voting system, 2 members voted for the amendment and 6 for the motion which was declared carried. The PLRB proceeded 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 4 – green belt and rural area Policy 14 – natural and historic environment Policy GBRA1 – rural design and development Policy GBRA10 – accommodation associated with an existing or proposed rural business Following its review of the information and after discussion, the PLRB concluded that there was adequate justification in terms of Policies 4, 14, GBRA1 and GBRA10 for the application to be granted on the grounds that it considered that the proposed development was an appropriate type of development in terms of land use. The PLRB then considered appropriate conditions to be attached to the planning consent. 6
Page 7
The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/21/1210 by the Firm of Thomas Orr for the erection of an agricultural workers’ dwelling house (permission in principle) at land 475 metres southeast of Cobblehaugh Farm Cottage, Cobblehaugh Road, Lanark be reversed and that planning permission be granted for the proposal subject to the conditions specified by the PLRB, attached as an appendix to this minute. Councillor Donnelly left the meeting during this item of business In terms of Standing Order No 14, the Chair adjourned the meeting during this item of business at 10.55am and reconvened at 11.25am and further adjourned at 11.50am and reconvened at 11.55am 4 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 7
Page 8
Application P/21/1210 - Conditions and Reasons Appendix Erection of an Agricultural Workers’ Dwelling House (Permission in Principle) at Land 475 Metres Southeast of Cobblehaugh Farm Cottage, Cobblehaugh Road, Lanark 1. The development to which this permission in principle relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of grant of this permission. Reason: To comply with section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. Five years is the default period set by Section 59 and there is no material reason indicating that a different period should be set. 2. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a further application(s) for the approval of any of the matters specified in this condition must be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority, in accordance with the five year timescale as set out in condition 1, above. These matters are as follows:- (a) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, parking areas (including number and size of parking spaces) and garden ground (b) the siting, design and external appearance of all building(s) and any other structures, including plans and elevations showing their dimensions and type and colour of external materials (c) detailed cross-sections of existing and proposed ground levels, details of underbuilding and finished floor levels in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum (d) the design and location of all boundary treatments including walls and fences (e) the landscaping proposals for the site, including details of existing trees and other planting to be retained together with proposals for new planting specifying number, size and species of all trees and shrubs, including, where appropriate, the planting of fruit/apple trees (f) the means of drainage and sewage disposal (g) details of facilities for the storage of refuse within the proposed development, including the design, location and access for uplift Reason: To comply with section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. 3. That the occupation of the dwellinghouse authorised by this permission shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in agriculture as defined in Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, on Charleston Park Farm; or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her or the widow or widower of such a person. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area. 4. That, notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 above, the design and siting of any dwellinghouse on the site shall take due cognisance of the rural location, with particular regard being paid to scale, massing, roof pitch, fenestration and materials. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure satisfactory integration of the new dwellinghouses with the rural location in which they are to be situated. 8
Page 9
5. That no consent is hereby granted for the indicative house footprint shown on the drawings titled Location Plan Rev. F, Indicative Site Plan Rev. E and Indicative Site Plan Rev. F. Reason: Permission is granted in principle only and no approval is given for these details. 6. That before any work starts on site, the developer shall secure the implementation of an archaeological watching brief, to be carried out by an archaeological organisation acceptable to the Planning Authority, during all ground disturbance. The retained archaeological organisation shall be afforded access at all reasonable times and allowed to record, recover and report items of interest and finds. A method statement for the watching brief will be submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the watching brief. The name of the archaeological organisation retained by the developer shall be given to the Planning Authority and to the West of Scotland Archaeology Service in writing not less than 14 days before development commences. Reason: In the interests of cultural heritage. 7. That, before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, details, including construction specifications, of passing places along Cobblehaugh Road from the junction with the A70 to the site, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council, as Planning Authority. Once approved, the passing places shall be constructed and maintained as such for the lifetime of the development, hereby approved. For the avoidance of doubt the passing places shall be located within Heads Highway. FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, the indicative locations of passing places as shown on drawing L(--)019(C) are considered acceptable in principle. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 8. That, unless otherwise agreed in writing and prior to works commencing on site, the applicant shall submit details to demonstrate that the new dwelling will be fitted with an electric vehicle charging (EVC) point. Thereafter, the agreed EVC provision shall be installed, commissioned, and maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications prior to that property which it serves being occupied. Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate facilities for the dwelling. 9. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details of measures to facilitate the provision of full fibre broadband to serve the dwelling, including details of appropriate digital infrastructure and a timescale for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority, 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 details of surface water drainage arrangements should be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority as part of the further submission for this site; 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 shall include a flood risk assessment of the site and signed appendices as required. Thereafter, the development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. 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. 9
Page 10
11. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011 (or any such order revoking or re-enacting that order), no buildings, structures or fences other than those approved under Condition 2 above; shall be erected within the application site; without the submission of a further planning application to the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of maintaining planning control of the site 10
Page 11
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 21 November 2022 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/20/0547 for Erection of a Boundary Fence and Associated Change of Use from Privately Owned Open Space to Private Garden Ground (Retrospective) 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: M Creasey Proposal: Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private ground (retrospective) Location: 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride G75 8LG Council Area/Ward: 7 East Kilbride Central South 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review 3 11
Page 12
[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 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(a)) Copies of submissions from consultees (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) 12
Page 13
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. 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 listed at and attached as Appendix 6. 6.2 The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received. No comments on the further representation were received from the applicant. Paul Manning Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 8 November 2022 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes We will work towards a sustainable future in sustainable places Good quality, suitable and sustainable places to live Thriving business, fair jobs and vibrant town centres Caring, connected, 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 13
Page 14
14
Page 15
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
3a 17
Page 18
18
Page 19
19
Page 20
20
Page 21
21
Page 22
22
Page 23
23
Page 24
24
Page 25
Report of Handling Report dated 23 March 2022 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 3b 25
Page 26
26
Page 27
Reference no. P/20/0547 Delegated Report Date 23 March 2022 Planning proposal: Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) Location: 74 Vancouver Drive East Kilbride G75 8LG Application Type : Householder Application Applicant : Mr Mark Creasey Location : 74 Vancouver Drive East Kilbride G75 8LG Decision: Application Refused Report by: HQ Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 Policy 2: Climate Change Policy 3: General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking Policy DM1: New development design Assessment Impact on privacy? No Impact on sunlight/daylight? No Impact on amenity? Yes Traffic issues? No Adheres to development plan policy? No Adverse comments from consultees? No Consultations Summary of response Roads Development Management Team have advised that the required visibility splays of 2.5m x 43m are achievable at the junction. With regards to visibility at the driveway, the required visibility splay of 2m x 35m is not achievable with the current fence design. Requested further drawings demonstrating that the visibility splays can be achieved. Have since inspected the junction and found that the fence does not adversely affect the visibility splay. Note that the footway on the corner of the junction is wide enough that it provides drivers exiting Ontario Park onto Vancouver Drive with visibility of around 40 metres which is acceptable at this type of junction. 3b 27
Page 28
Representation(s): ► 3 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 2 Comment letters Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for a 1.8m high boundary fence and an associated change of use from private open ground to enclosed private garden space at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride. The application site is located within the Westwood area and is bounded by housing to the north and east. The southern boundary is located on Vancouver Drive and western boundary is located on Ontario Park. The land was originally considered to comprise of some informal public open space but the applicant has stated that they are the owner of the whole application site. It is therefore considered that if the land was privately owned there is no change of use involved in the proposals and therefore the assessment focusses solely on the fence that has been erected. 1.2 The fence encloses an area of private land located forward of, and to the side of, the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse. The fence is of a timber construction with single vertical slats. Most of the fence has been built on the property boundary with a small section returning at the driveway. Furthermore, as the property has boundaries on Vancouver Drive and Ontario Park, the fence has been erected near the junction between the two roads. 1.3 The site is located within a residential neighbourhood in East Kilbride and contains a two- storey, end-terrace house. The house has a white roughcast render and a pitched roof covered with red roofing tiles. The main entrance to the house is located at the side of the building. The property also has a driveway within the front curtilage. The site itself is located approximately 200m west of East Milton Primary School. 2 Consultations Roads and Transportation Services – have advised that the required visibility splays of 2.5m x 43m are achievable at the junction. With regards to visibility at the driveway, the required visibility splay of 2m x 35m is not achievable with the current fence design. Requested further drawings demonstrating that the visibility splays can be achieved. Have since inspected the junction and found that the fence does not adversely affect the visibility splay. Note that the footway on the corner of the junction is wide enough that it provides drivers exiting Ontario Park onto Vancouver Drive with visibility of around 40 metres which is acceptable at this type of junction. Response: Noted. Roads and Transportation Service’s will be fully considered in the Assessment and Conclusion section below. 3 Representations 3.1 Following the neighbour notification process, three representations were received. The themes raised in the objections have been categorised and summarised below. 3.1.1 The height of the fence and its proximity to the road are reducing visibility at the road junction and impacting upon road safety. 28
Page 29
Response: Noted. As noted in 2 above, Roads and Transportation Services do not raise any concerns with regard the fence and visibility for vehicles at the junction of Ontario Park and Vancouver Drive. 3.1.2 The fence will set a precedence for the future where more residents erect high fencing around their gardens which would not be in keeping with the style of the local area. Response: Noted. All applications are assessed individually and on their individual merits. 3.1.3 Security offered by the fence. Response: The security offered by the fence is not a material consideration in determining this application. 3.1.4 Is there not an alternative solution? Response: The application is in retrospect and any assessment is required to be made on the proposals as applied for. 4 Assessment and Conclusions 4.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for a 1.8m high boundary fence at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride. The application site is located within the Westwood area and is bounded by housing to the north and east. The southern boundary is located on Vancouver Drive and western boundary is located on Ontario Park. 4.2 The application site is designated as being within a general urban area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 2021 (SLLDP2). As such, Policy 3 advises developments which would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the wider community or to the character of the surrounding area will not be permitted. Developments particularly ‘bad neighbour’ uses which by virtue of visual impact, noise, smell, air pollution, disturbance, traffic or public safety will not be permitted if they are detrimental to the amenity of residents. Each proposal will be judged on its own merits with particular consideration given to the impact on the amenity of the area, proposed servicing and parking arrangements and where appropriate an assessment of the contribution of the proposal to meet an identified local need. 4.3 Policy 2 - Climate change of SLLDP2 requires new development where possible to seek to minimize and mitigate against the effects of climate change. It is noted that the retrospective proposal does not involve any large scale and has been constructed with a sustainable building material. It is therefore not considered to have a significant detrimental impact upon the water and soils environment nor biodiversity. 4.4 Policy 5 - Development management and placemaking states that development proposals should take account of and be integrated within the local context and built form. Development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on the local community and there should be no significant adverse impact on adjacent buildings in terms of layout, scale, massing, design, external materials or amenity as well as no adverse implications for public safety. This policy is further supported within SLLDP2 Policy DM1 – Design. 4.5 In assessment, it is noted that an area of open front curtilage has been retained between the dwellinghouse and the road. However, the proposal will result in the loss of a large area of open space within the front curtilage, along the boundary of Vancouver Drive 29
Page 30
(west of the dwellinghouse). Furthermore, the proposal extends along the boundary on Ontario Park into a position forward of the principal elevation of the neighbouring property on Ontario Park. This disrupts the established open plan design of properties on Vancouver Drive and at the southern end of Ontario Park. Furthermore, due to the layout and scale of the proposal and its prominent position on the corner at the road junction, the proposal is considered to have a dominant impact on the street scene and to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. In considering the above, the proposal does not respect the character of the adjacent and surrounding development and does not integrate within the local context. 4.6 Roads and Transportation Services were consulted and, in their response, the Roads Department have stated that the required viability splay for the private driveway maybe achievable however, they have stated that the visibility splay at the driveway does not currently meet the required standards and that nothing over 900mm in height is permitted to meet the required visibility splay standard. 4.7 It is therefore considered that the location of the fence on a corner plot results in a structure that dominates the street scene and is not inkeeping with the surrounding area. The fence is incongruous to the open plan nature of the surrounding area resulting in a negative visual impact. The fence, in its current form does not provide the required visibility splays expected for a private driveway. It is therefore considered that the fence is contrary to SLLDP2 Policies 3, 5 and DM1. 4.8 In conclusion, it is considered that the retrospective fence proposal has a significant detrimental impact on visual amenity as a result of its layout, scale and positioning, and will be detrimental to public safety as a result of poor visibility at the driveway. Planning permission is therefore refused. Enforcement action will now be pursued to regularise the breach of planning control. 5 Reason for decision 5.1 The retrospective development is detrimental to both residential and visual amenity and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Delegating officer: James Wright Date: 19.04.2022 Previous references None List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 12.06.2020 30
Page 31
► Consultations Roads Development Management Team 24.08.2020 ► Representations Site, 107 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G75 8LQ Dated: Gillian McNaught, 3 Ontario Park, East Kilbride, G75 8LX, , Dated: 15.06.2020 Caroline Khairallah, 1 Ontario Park, East Kilbride, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G75 8LX Dated: 18.06.2020 Sarah Symington, , , , , Dated: 24.06.2020 Joe Allan, 94 Franklin Place, Westwood, East Kilbride, G75 8LS, Dated: 24.09.2020 J E Allan, 94 Franklin Place, East Kilbride, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G75 8LS Dated: 17.09.2020 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Stuart Connolly, Planning officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: Email: stuart.connolly@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 31
Page 32
Planning Application Application number: P/20/0547 Reasons for refusal 01. The proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the scale, design and layout of the fence would detract from the established character of the surrounding built environment and adversely impact upon the established streetscape in the area. The proposal will therefore have a significant adverse impact upon visual amenity in the local area. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5, and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the proposal results in a dominant structure on a corner site within an open plan residential development resulting in a significant, detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscene. Reason(s) for decision The retrospective development is detrimental to both residential and visual amenity and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status Location Plan 1 Refused Site Plan: Existing 1 Refused Site Plan: Proposed 1 Refused Front Elevation 1 Refused Rear Elevation 1 Refused Side Elevation 1 Refused Side Elevation 1 Refused 32
Page 33
Consultation Responses Response dated 10 June 2020 from Roads and Transportation Services Appendix 2(b) 3c 33
Page 34
34
Page 35
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION Planning Application No: P/20/0547 Dated: 10 June 2020 Received: 02 August 2020 Applicant: Mr Mark Creasey Contact: J. Ferguson Proposed: Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) Ext: 01698 - 455266 Location: 74 Vancouver Drive East Kilbride G75 8LG Planner: Byron Sharp Type of Consent: Full No of drg(s) submitted: Portal Proposals Acceptable? Y or N Item ref Comments 1. EXISTING ROADS 1(a) 1(d) 3(b) 4(d) This application is for the erection of front and side garden boundary walling/fencing (max. height 1.8 metres). At the junction of Ontario Park & Vancouver Drive the existing junction visibility splay of 2.5m x 43m should be maintained. Within these splays nothing over 900mm in height, i.e. trees, shrubs walls etc is permitted. These splays should be achievable; however, a drawing demonstrating these splays should be provided. At the driveway access a vehicular visibility splays of 2m x 35m (measured from the edge of the carriageway) are required. Pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4m x 2.4m, (measured from the heel kerb of the footway) are also required. Within these splays nothing over 900mm in height, i.e. trees, shrubs walls etc is permitted. A drawing demonstrating these splays should be provided. The length of the driveway is not to this Services specification. The minimum length acceptable to this Service is 6m. As this has already been constructed, I am willing to allow a relaxation subject to the applicant ensuring that no part of any vehicle using the driveway overhangs the public footway. No works should be carried out within the public footway without the proper approvals by this Service, i.e. Road Opening Permit / Road Occupation Permit. I would defer our recommendations until the applicant submits revised drawings showing the above. CONDITIONS 07.24 Sight Lines - Vehicular 07.25 Sight Lines - Pedestrian (a) General Impact of Development Y (b) Type of Connection(s) (road junction/footway crossing) Y (c) Location(s) of Connection(s) Y (d) Sightlines (2.5m x 43m, 2m x 35m & 2.4m x2.4m) N (e) Pedestrian Provision Y 2. NEW ROADS (a) Width(s) () (b) Layout (horizontal/vertical alignment) (c) Junction Details (locations/radii/sightlines) (d) Turning Facilities (circles/hammerheads) (e) Pedestrian Provision (f) Provision for PU Services 3. SERVICING & CAR PARKING (a) Servicing Arrangements/Driveways Y (b) Car Parking Provision (existing) N (C) Layout of Parking Bays/Garages N 4. RECOMMENDATION (a) No Objections (b) No Objections Subject to Conditions (c) Refuse (d) Defer Decision Y (e) SOID to advise THE APPLICANT MUST BE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING: - (i) Construction Consent (S21)* Not Required (ii) Road Bond (S17)* Not Required (iii) Road Opening Permit (S56)* Not Required (iv) Dropped Kerb (S56)* Not Required * Relevant Section of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 3c 35
Page 36
Signed: Date: Item Ref Comments 36
Page 37
Representations Representation From Dated Gillian McNaught, by email 15/06/20 Caroline Khairallah, by email 18/06/20 Sarah Symington, by email 24/06/20 Joe Allan, 94 Franklin Place, Westwood, East Kilbride 12/09/20 and 18/09/20 Appendix 2(c) 3d 37
Page 38
38
Page 39
3d 39
Page 40
40
Page 41
3d 41
Page 42
42
Page 43
3d 43
Page 44
44
Page 45
3d 45
Page 46
46
Page 47
47
Page 48
48
Page 49
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3e 49
Page 50
50
Page 51
Photo 1 3e 51
Page 52
Photo 2 52
Page 53
Photo 3 53
Page 54
Photo 4 54
Page 55
Photo 5 55
Page 56
Photo 6 56
Page 57
3e 57
Page 58
58
Page 59
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3f 59
Page 60
60
Page 61
Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Email stuart.connolly@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Economic Development Mr Mark Creasey 74 Vancouver Drive East Kilbride G75 8LG Our Ref: P/20/0547 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Stuart Connolly Date: 25 May 2022 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) Site address: 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8LG, Application no: P/20/0547 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 www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk 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 The Planning Service is undertaking a Customer Satisfaction Survey in order to obtain feedback about how we can best improve our Service to reflect the needs of our customers. The link to the survey can be found here: If you were the applicant: http://tinyurl.com/nrtgmy6 If you were the agent: http://tinyurl.com/od26p6g We would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to answer the questions in the survey based on your experience of dealing with the Planning Service in the past 12 months. We value your 3f 61
Page 62
opinion and your comments will help us to enhance areas where we are performing well, but will also show us where there are areas of the service that need to be improved. I do hope you can take part in this Customer Survey and look forward to receiving your comments in the near future. If you prefer to complete a paper version of the survey, please contact us by telephone on 0303 123 1015, selecting option 7, quoting the application number. We will send you a copy of the survey and a pre-paid envelope to return it. Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Economic Development Enc: 62
Page 63
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mr Mark Creasey Per: 74 Vancouver Drive East Kilbride G75 8LG With reference to your application received on 29.04.2020 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) Site location: 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8LG, 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: 25th May 2022 Head of Planning and Economic Development 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 Economic Development Application no. P/20/0547 63
Page 64
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/20/0547 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the scale, design and layout of the fence would detract from the established character of the surrounding built environment and adversely impact upon the established streetscape in the area. The proposal will therefore have a significant adverse impact upon visual amenity in the local area. 02. The proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5, and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the proposal results in a dominant structure on a corner site within an open plan residential development resulting in a significant, detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscene. Reason(s) for decision The retrospective development is detrimental to both residential and visual amenity and is therefore contrary to Policies 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 64
Page 65
Notes to applicant Application number: P/20/0547 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 1 Refused Site Plan: Existing 1 Refused Site Plan: Proposed 1 Refused Front Elevation 1 Refused Rear Elevation 1 Refused Side Elevation 1 Refused Side Elevation 1 Refused 65
Page 66
COMMUNITY AND ENTERPRISE RESOURCES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (Interim) 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. 66
Page 67
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant M Creasey Appendix 5 3g 67
Page 68
68
Page 69
Notice of Review Form Page 1 of 5 Internal Use 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: MARK CREASEY Address: Postcode: 74 VANCOUVER DRIVE EAST KILBRIDE G75 8LG Contact Telephone 1: 07946 471617 Contact Telephone 2: Fax No: E-mail:* MARKCREASEY1@SKY.COM 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? YE S Application reference number: P / 2 0 / 0 5 4 7 Site address: 74 VANCOUVER DRIVE EAST KILBRIDE G75 8LG Description of proposed development: Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) Validation date of application: 8/6/20 Date of decision (if any): 25/5/22 3g 69
Page 70
Notice of Review Form Page 2 of 5 Internal Use Nature of application 1. Application for planning permission (including householder application) YES 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 YES 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 YES 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: NO NEIGHBOUR OBJECTION REGARDING HOW FENCE LOOKED, SO WHAT EVIDENCE WAS USED TO CONCLUDE “significant adverse impact upon visual amenity in the local area” OR “significant detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscene.”? 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 Yes No 2. Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely, and without barriers to entry? YES If there are reasons why you think the Planning Local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here: NO 70
Page 71
Notice of Review Form Page 3 of 5 Internal Use 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. I DO NOT CONSIDER A WOODEN FENCE A “dominant structure” LIKE AN OUTBUILDING OR BLOCK OF FLATS. THE OTHER REASON FOR REJECTION WAS “significant adverse impact upon visual amenity in the local area” BUT I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OBJECTIONS REGARDING HOW FENCE LOOKED, SO IS THIS ONE PERSONS’ OPINION AT COUNCIL, AND I QUESTION THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS CONCLUSION TO REJECT APPLICATION. I AM AWARE VERBALLY BY SLC PLANNING OFFICER THERE MAY BE A ROAD SAFETY ISSUE DUE TO HEIGH OF FENCE. I NOTE SLC HAVE PAINTED GIVE-WAY LINES NOW AT JUNCTION WITH ONTARIO PARK, AND AS THE ENCLOSED PHOTO SHOWS THEY ARE SUFFICIENT SIGHT LINES OF CIRCA 8 CAR LENGTHS OR MORE IF A MOTORIST CHOOSES TO STOP AT THIS GIVE WAY JUNCTION. THE FENCE HAS BEEN IN PLACE OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS WITH NO EVIDENCE OR RECORDED TRAFFIC INCIDENTS OR NEAR MISSES. I CONSIDER MY FENCED SIDE GARDEN TO BE A SAFE AREA FOR MY AUTISTIC CHILD TO PLAY IN AN EXCLOSED SPACE AWAY FROM TRAFFIC. “Equality Act OR Section 22 of the children's Act sets out the legal duty of local authority regarding child safeguarding and to promote the welfare of a child with disabilities.” WHAT LEGAL “reasonable adjustments” WOULD SLC MAKE IF MY FENCE WAS ORDERED TO COME DOWN? IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO MAKE THE PLAYPARK IN MY STREET A SAFE PLACE WITH HIGH FENCING THE WHOLE WAY ROUND PLAY PARK? A PLANNING OFFICER WHO ATTENDED MY ADDRESS IS OF THE OPINION MY FENCE SURROUNDS THE “FRONT” OF MY HOUSE. THIS IS CONTRAY TO THE COUNCIL APPROVED APPLICATION ON P/19/1580 WHERE THE COUNCIL REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO THIS AREA OF MY PROPERTY BEING “two storey SIDE extension”. I WOULD QUESTION PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT APPROVE MANY TWO STOREY EXTENTIONS TO A FRONT OF A HOUSE, SO I FEEL MY FENCE IS NOT SURROUNDING MY “PRICIPAL ELEVATION” AS THE COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY AGREED IN APPLICATION P/19/1580, SO THE NATIONAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES OUGHT BE APPLIED AS THIS BEING A SIDE FENCE AND NOT A FRONT GARDEN FENCE, OTHERWISE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVE CONTRADICTED ITSELF REFERRING TO THIS AREA OF MY GARDEN AS A “SIDE OF HOUSE” AND NOT A FRONT OF HOUSE, AND NATIONAL DELELOPMENT GUIDELINES DIFFER FOR WHAT IS ALLOWED AT A SIDE OF A PROPERTY COMPARED TO A FRONT Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the determination on your application was made? YES Yes No 71
Page 72
Notice of Review Form Page 4 of 5 Internal Use 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. BYRON SHARP PLANNING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TOOK THE DECISION HIMSELF TO REMOVE IN MY ORIGINAL APPLICATION SUMMER 2020 ABOUT WELL-BEING NEED FOR FENCE FOR MY AUTISTIC CHILDS SAFE AREA TO PLAY. YOU WOULD NEED ASCERTAIN FROM BYRON SHARP CORRESPONDANCE WHY HE CHOOSE TO REMOVE THIS DETAIL. WAS BRYON SHARP PERHAPS CONCERNED TO LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE COUNCIL REGARDING DISABILITIES? PETER HARKIN FROM SLC ALSO ATTENDED SITE AROUND THIS TIME AND WAS AWARE OF REASON MY FENCE WAS ERECTED. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT A PLANNING CONDITION AND TIMESCALE OF 3 OR 5 YEARS FOR TEMPORARY APPROVAL THAT WOULD TO REVIEW IF EVIDENCE OF ROAD TRAFFIC INCIDENTS MATERIALISED OR IF THE NEEDS OF MY DISABABLE CHILD CHANGED. THIS COULD BE SIMILAR TO WHEN A DISABLED PARKING SPACE IS PROVIDED OUTSIDE A PREMISES, BUT THAT PROVISION MAY BE REMOVED IF A DISABLED PERSON NO LONGER LIVED AT THE PROPERTY SOME YEARS LATER. 72
Page 73
Notice of Review Form Page 5 of 5 Internal Use 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. PHOTO ENCLOSED OF STREET SCENE OF MY FENCE AND SHOWING SIGHT LINES OF TRAFFIC APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT WHEN A VEHICLE STOPS AT THE GIVE-WAY JUNCTION. 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: YES Full completion of all parts of this form YES. Statement of your reasons for requiring a review YES. 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: MARK CREASEY Date: 25/8/2022 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) 73
Page 74
74
Page 75
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review S Symington, by email Appendix 6 3h 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
STATEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS Planning Application No. P/20/0547 Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride, G75 8LG 1.0 Planning Background 1.1 A retrospective planning application was submitted for a 1.8m high boundary fence at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride. Following due consideration of the proposals, including consulting with the Roads and Transportation Services (Development Management Team) the planning application was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 25th May 2022. The report of handling sets out the decision and the reasons for refusal are listed in the decision notice. This document is available elsewhere within the papers. 1.2 The application site is located within the Westwood area of East Kilbride and is bounded by housing to the north and east. The southern boundary is located on Vancouver Drive and western boundary is located on Ontario Park. The land was originally considered to comprise part of an area of informal public open space as well as a private garden, but the applicant has stated that they are the owner of the whole application site. As the applicant stated that this area was also privately owned there is no change of use involved as part of the proposals and therefore the assessment focussed solely on the fence that has been erected. 1.3 The fence encloses an area of private land located forward of, and to the side of, the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse. The fence is of a timber construction with single vertical slats. Most of the fence has been built on the property boundary with a small section returning at the driveway. Furthermore, as the property has boundaries on Vancouver Drive and Ontario Park, the fence has been erected near the junction between the two roads. 2.0 Assessment against the development plan and other relevant policies 2.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended requires that an application for planning permission is determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 2.2 In terms of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021), the following policies are applicable: • Policy 2: Climate Change • Policy 3: General Urban Areas and Settlements • Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking • Policy DM1: New development design 2.3 The application site is designated as being within a general urban area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 2021 (SLLDP2). As such, Policy 3 advises developments which would be detrimental to the amenity of 3h 77
Page 78
residents and the wider community or to the character of the surrounding area will not be permitted. Developments particularly ‘bad neighbour’ uses which by virtue of visual impact, noise, smell, air pollution, disturbance, traffic, or public safety will not be permitted if they are detrimental to the amenity of residents. Each proposal will be judged on its own merits with particular consideration given to the impact on the amenity of the area, proposed servicing and parking arrangements and where appropriate an assessment of the contribution of the proposal to meet an identified local need. 2.4 Policy 2 - Climate change of SLLDP2 requires new development where possible to seek to minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change. It is noted that the retrospective proposal does not involve any large scale construction and has been constructed with a sustainable building material. It is therefore not considered to have a significant detrimental impact upon the water and soils environment nor biodiversity. 2.5 Policy 5 - Development management and placemaking states that development proposals should take account of and be integrated within the local context and built form. Development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on the local community and there should be no significant adverse impact on adjacent buildings in terms of layout, scale, massing, design, external materials or amenity as well as no adverse implications for public safety. This policy is further supported within SLLDP2 Policy DM1 – Design. 2.6 In assessment, it is noted that an area of open front curtilage has been retained between the dwellinghouse and the road. However, the proposal results in the loss of a large area of open space within the front curtilage, along the boundary of Vancouver Drive (west of the dwellinghouse). Furthermore, the proposal extends along the boundary on Ontario Park into a position forward of the principal elevation of the neighbouring property on Ontario Park. This disrupts the established open plan design of properties on Vancouver Drive and at the southern end of Ontario Park. Furthermore, due to the layout and scale of the proposal and its prominent position on the corner at the road junction, the proposal is considered to have a dominant impact on the street scene and to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. In considering the above, the proposal does not respect the character of the adjacent and surrounding development and does not integrate within the local context. 2.7 Roads and Transportation Services were consulted and, in their response, the Roads Department have stated that the required viability splay for the private driveway maybe achievable however, they have stated that the visibility splay at the driveway does not currently meet the required standards and that nothing over 900mm in height is permitted to meet the required visibility splay standard. 2.8 It was therefore considered that the location of the fence on a corner plot resulted in a structure that dominates the street scene and is not in keeping with the surrounding area. The fence is incongruous to the open plan nature of the surrounding area resulting in a negative visual impact. The fence, in its current form does not provide the required visibility splays expected for a private driveway. It is therefore considered that the fence is contrary to SLLDP2 Policies 3, 5 and DM1. 78
Page 79
2.9 In conclusion, following a detailed assessment of the proposals it was considered that the fence had a significant detrimental impact on visual amenity as a result of its layout, scale and positioning, and will be detrimental to public safety as a result of poor visibility at the driveway. In this regard the proposal was therefore not deemed to be in accordance with Policies 3, 5 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021). 3.0 Observations on applicants Notice of Review 3.1 The applicants have submitted a statement to support their review. The grounds are summarised below: (a) I do not consider a wooden fence a “dominant structure” like an outbuilding or a block of flats. Response: Whilst a fence is not automatically a dominant structure, in this instance the location and scale of the fence on two public frontages is considered to result in it dominating the surrounding streetscene. (b) The other reason for rejection was “significant adverse impact upon visual amenity in the local area” but I am not aware of any objections regarding how fence looked, so is this one persons’ opinion at Council, and I question the evidence for this conclusion to reject application. Response: The proposals are assessed against the policy criteria set out within the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan2 (2021) and are the views of the Planning Office, not an individual. (c) I am aware verbally by SLC Planning Officer there may be a road safety issue due to the height of the fence. I note SLC have painted give way lines now at junction with Ontario Park, and as impact the enclosed photos shows they are sufficient sightlines of circa 8 car lengths or more if a motorist chooses to stop at this give way junction. The fence has been in place over two and a half years with no evidence or recorded traffic incidents or near misses. Response: Roads and Transportation Services (DM Team) raised concerns regarding the entrance in the property’s driveway in their consultation response. These were the only noted concerns linked to road safety with Roads and Transportation Services response stating, ‘With regards to visibility at the driveway, the required visibility splay of 2m x 35m is not achievable with the current fence design’. (d) Whilst I consider my fenced side garden to be a safe area for my autistic child to play in an enclosed space away from traffic. “Equality Act OR Section 22 of the Children's Act sets out the legal duty of local authority regarding child safeguarding and to promote the welfare of a child with disabilities.” What legal “reasonable adjustments” would SLC make if my fence was ordered to come down? Is the alternative to make the playpark in my street a safe place with high fencing the whole way round play park? Response: Planning permission and controls are concerned with the use of land rather than the identity of the user. In this instance a fence of 1 metre in height could be installed as “permitted development” and therefore benefit from planning permission without the need for an application. 79
Page 80
(e) Planning Officer who attended my address is of the opinion my fence surrounds the front of my house. This is contrary to the Council approved application on P/19/1580 where the Council repeatedly referred to this area of my property being “two storey side extension”. Response: The application referenced is for a two-storey extension to the side of the existing dwellinghouse. The extension is fully in line with the gable of the house and does not run forward of the building line. It was therefore correctly described as a “side extension”. The fence is located forward of the dwellinghouses building line and is not in the same location as the extension that was approved. (f) I feel my fence is not surrounding my “principal elevation” as the Council previously agreed in application P/19/1580, so the national Permitted Development Guidelines ought to be applied as being a side fence and not a front fence. Response: The fence is in part on the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse as well as on a public corner that fronts a road (Ontario Park). The fence, due to its height cannot benefit from permitted development as it fronts both Vancouver Drive and Ontario Park. As noted in (d) above, if the fence was up to a metre in height it would benefit from permitted development. The relevant class of Permitted Development is Class 3E. “The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse” which states that development is not permitted if: (2) b) any part of the resulting gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure would exceed one metre in height where it— (i) fronts a road; or (ii) extends beyond the line of the wall of the principal elevation or side elevation that is nearest a road. (g) There is no public note regarding my personal circumstances on the file. Response: Sensitive material relating to personal circumstances are not published as part of a public planning application, but it was noted on the file for internal viewing. As noted in (d) the planning assessment is with the use of land rather than the identity or circumstances of the user. (h) I would accept a temporary planning consent for the fence. Response: It was considered that the visual impact of the fence is of a scale that it would not be acceptable for a temporary period and may lead to an undesirable precedent within the locale. As noted, a fence of 1 metre in height could be installed through permitted development without the need for an application for planning permission. 80
Page 81
4.0 Conclusions 4.1 In summary, the proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 relating to Policies 3, 5 and DM1. In addition, there are no material considerations which outweigh the provisions of the development plan. It is therefore respectfully requested that the Review Body refuse planning permission for the retrospective proposal. 81
Page 82
82
Page 83
From: To: Subject: Date: Sarah Knox McLeod, Stuart P/20/0547 18 September 2022 21:36:37 Further to my previous email regarding the above retrospective planning appeal. I'm having trouble understanding the planning process as previously the application has been refused as it is" detrimental to both residential and visual amenity and is therefore contrary to Policies 3,5 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. No changes have been made to the development so I would think that it is still contrary to the Policies above. If this is not the case please explain to me why. Kind regards Sarah 3h 83
Page 84
84
Page 85
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 21 November 2022 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/21/1639 for Erection of Outbuilding within the Rear Curtilage of End Terrace House and an Associated Change of Use from Private Recreational Garden Space to Commercial Hairdressing Business (Retrospective) at 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton 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: L Marshall (formerly L Grattan) Proposal: Erection of outbuilding within the rear curtilage of end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) Location: 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT Council Area/Ward: 17 Hamilton North and East 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- 4 85
Page 86
(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 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 X Site inspection X 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 submissions from consultees (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) 86
Page 87
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. 4 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 listed at and attached as Appendix 6. 6.2 The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received. Comments from the applicant are contained in the submissions attached as Appendix 7. Paul Manning Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 8 November 2022 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes We will work towards a sustainable future in sustainable places Good quality, suitable and sustainable places to live Thriving business, fair jobs and vibrant town centres Caring, connected, 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: 07385 370 117) E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 87
Page 88
88
Page 89
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 4a 89
Page 90
90
Page 91
4a 91
Page 92
92
Page 93
93
Page 94
94
Page 95
95
Page 96
96
Page 97
97
Page 98
98
Page 99
Report of Handling Report dated 13 June 2022 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 4b 99
Page 100
100
Page 101
Reference no. P/21/1639 Delegated Report Date 13 June 2022 Planning proposal: Erection of outbuilding within the rear curtilage of end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) Location: 5 Kenmar Terrace Hamilton ML3 0LT Application Type : Detailed planning application Applicant : Ms Leanne Grattan Location : 5 Kenmar Terrace Hamilton ML3 0LT Decision: Application refused Report by: HQ Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) Policy 2 Climate Change SLDP2: Policy 3 General Urban Areas SLDP2: Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Placemaking SLDP2: Policy DM12 Working from Home 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 Environmental Services Roads Development Management Team 4b 101
Page 102
Representation(s): ► 10 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 1 Comment letters Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning consent for the erection of an outbuilding in the rear curtilage of a domestic property for use as a commercial hairdressing business. The property is an end of row property of 4 houses within an established residential area of Hamilton. The street is a cul-de-sac and is therefore not a thoroughfare for any other traffic other than residents. 1.2 The application is in retrospect and the outbuilding has been constructed using timber with patio doors at the front elevation. The hairdressing use proposed is to operate on a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday with approximately 3 – 4 clients a day. 2 Background 2.1 Local Plan Status 2.1.1 South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) SLLDP2 was formally adopted on 09 April 2021 and now supersedes the former Local Development Plan. For the purposes of determining planning applications the Council will therefore assess proposals against the policies contained within the newly adopted SLLDP2. In this regard the application site and associated proposal is affected by the following policies contained in SLLDP2: • Policy 2 Climate Change • SLDP2: Policy 3 General Urban Areas • SLDP2: Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking • Placemaking • SLDP2: Policy DM12 Working from Home 2.2 Planning History 2.2.1 There is no relevant planning history for the site. 3 Consultations 3.1 Roads (Development Management Team) – a 3 bed room house with a hairdressing business requires at least 3 off-street car parking spaces and note that 3 car parking spaces are available at the property. Have no objections Response: Noted. 3.2 Environmental Services – have no objections to the proposals subject to advisory notes relating to Health and Safety at Work Act, action regarding nuisance and contamination are placed on any planning permission, if issued. Response: Noted. 102
Page 103
4 Representation(s) 4.1 Following the statutory neighbour notification of the application, 10 letters of objection from 9 separate parties have been received with the following concerns: a) Noise levels from operation of hair salon Response: Environmental Services have not raised any concerns as part of their consultation response but have requested that an advisory regarding noise nuisance would be required to be placed on any planning permission if granted. A detailed assessment of the proposals impact on the surrounding amenity of the area is contained in 5 below. b) Road safety, including access problems for emergency vehicles and lack of parking in street. Response: These concerns are noted, however the consultation response from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team raises no objections to the proposals. c) Privacy Issues with clients looking into neighbouring properties and influx of visitors to area Response: Noted. A detailed assessment of the proposals impact on the surrounding amenity, including privacy, of the area is contained in 5 below. d) Late night, evening activity Response: The application submission states working hours would be until 5pm only, however this concern is addressed within the assessment and conclusion section below f) Impact on property values Response: This matter is not a material consideration and cannot be taken into consideration when assessing a planning application. g) Title Deeds say the house cannot be used for a commercial business Response: This is a private civil matter that does not fall within the remit of the Planning System. h) Police required to visit the area due to the use Response: No further information has been given regarding this concern and there is no tangible evidence in relation to the planning assessment that the business would result in the requirement of police visits i) Lack of Health and Safety and insurance Response: These matters would not be a material consideration to the assessment of a planning application and would be separate matters that the applicant would be required to ensure they were in compliance with. j) Attempts to rent salon out for additional use Response: The application state that the hairdressing use is for 4 days a week only. The application is therefore assessed on this basis. k) Working during Covid-19 Lockdown Response: This has no relevance to the assessment of this planning application. 4.2 It is noted that a 25-signature petition was submitted to the Council’s Enforcement Team prior to the application being submitted. The petition highlighted the unauthorised operation was being undertaken and was one of the factors that led to the Enforcement Team taking action that has resulted in the submission of this application. 103
Page 104
5 Assessment and Conclusions 5.1 The applicant seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of an outbuilding within the rear curtilage of a detached dwellinghouse and its use as a commercial hairdresser. 5.2 The application site is designated as being within a general urban area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 2021 (SLLDP2). As such, Policy 3 advises developments will be judged on its own merits with particular consideration given to the impact on the amenity of the area, proposed servicing and parking arrangements and where appropriate an assessment of the contribution of the proposal to meet an identified local need. Developments which are considered to be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the wider community or to the character of the surrounding area will not be permitted. Developments which by virtue of any visual impact, noise, smell, air pollution, disturbance, traffic or public safety will not be permitted if they are detrimental to the amenity of residents. 5.3 Policy 2 - Climate change of SLLDP2 requires new development where possible to seek to minimize and mitigate against the effects of climate change. It is noted that the retrospective proposal does not involve any large-scale construction. It is therefore not considered to have a significant detrimental impact upon the water and soils environment nor biodiversity. 5.4 Policy 5 - Development management and placemaking states that development proposals should take account of and be integrated within the local context and built form. Development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on the local community and there should be no significant adverse impact on adjacent buildings in terms of layout, scale, massing, design, external materials or amenity as well as no adverse implications for public safety. This policy is further supported within SLLDP2 Policy DM1 New Development Design. 5.5 Policy DM12 - Working from Home states that there should be no adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of noise, disturbance, smell and dirt generated by the business or by members of the public visiting the premises. There should be no adverse impact on traffic or public safety resulting from traffic generated by the proposed use and satisfactory provision for car-parking and servicing is in place. 5.6 It is considered that the design, scale and siting of the outbuilding is in keeping with the domestic garden in which it sits and generally with the surrounding area. The outbuilding is of a scale that is suitable within the rear garden of a property of this nature. The materials used are again in keeping. The outbuilding has no windows on any elevation other than the front looking southward. The orientation of the windows, the distance they are form any neighbouring property and that the outbuilding is not elevated ensures that the design of the outbuilding does create any level of significant overlooking within the surrounding area. 5.7 It is considered that whilst the design and siting of the outbuilding may be considered acceptable within a domestic setting, the use of the outbuilding as a commercial hairdresser is considered not to be compatible within the surrounding residential area. They result in introducing visitors into a quiet residential cul-de-sac approximately 3 to 4 times a day, four days a week, including on a weekend. It is considered that as the street is not a thoroughfare, the current amenity and character of the street is that of one serving only its residents. It is therefore considered that the introduction of a commercial business with visiting customers is not in keeping with the character of the locale and introduces disharmony into the existing amenity of the street. The introduction of a significant amount 104
Page 105
of activity in proportion to a small cul-de-sac of this nature is not considered to be of a scale that is acceptable on the character of the area. Whilst Roads (Development Management Team) have no objections to the proposals in terms of road safety or parking, this does not take account the impact the level of activity associated with the use in terms of cars reversing, doors opening closing etc. It is noted that Environmental Services have no objections to the proposals but have requested an advisory note to be added in relation to their response not precluding formal action being taken against the person responsible for any nuisance which may arise due to the operation of the proposed development. 5.8 It is therefore considered that the location of the site in a quiet and small cul-de-sac is not an appropriate location for a business of this nature. The level of activity and visiting associated with the business introduces a significant level of disamenity into the area which has an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the character of the area. As such the application cannot be supported. 5.9 In conclusion, whilst acknowledged that the design and siting of the outbuilding is in keeping with the area and does not impinge upon the amenity of surrounding neighbours per se, it’s use as a commercial hairdressing business is not considered acceptable within the area and has a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbours. In view of this, it is considered that the proposals cannot be supported and that planning permission be refused as the proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5 DM1 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as it would have an adverse impact on the amenity and character of the area. 4 Reason for decision 4.1 The development introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity of the area and is not in keeping with the character of the locale and as such is contrary to Policies 3, 5, DM1 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021). Delegating officer: Tony Finn Date: 13 June 2022 Previous references None List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 18.02.2022 105
Page 106
► Consultations Environmental Services 31.01.2022 Roads Development Management Team 31.01.2022 ► Representations Mr Andrew Herron, 7 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, , Dated: 15.12.2021 Mr Andrew Herron, 7 kenmar terrace, Hamilton, Glasgow, ML3 0LT, Dated: 28.02.2022 Miss Theresa Gallacher, 15 kenmar terrace, Whitehill, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, Dated: 28.02.2022 Ms Arlene Mccrory, 34 Kenmar road, Hamilton, Ml30jj, , Dated: 11.03.2022 Mrs Lee Morgan, 3, Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, Dated: 11.03.2022 Doreen Nicoll, Sent Via Email, , , , Dated: 14.03.2022 Mr Frank Rooney, 11 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, , Dated: 10.03.2022 Pamela Sneddon, Sent Via Email, , , , Dated: 07.03.2022 Miss Michelle McCluskey, 7 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, , Dated: 07.03.2022 Miss Hannah Pate, 16 Baltersan Gardens, Hamilton, ML3 7QW, , Dated: 09.03.2022 Mr Jude Herron, 7 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, , Dated: 09.03.2022 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- James Wright, Planning officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455903 Email: james.wright@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 106
Page 107
Planning Application Application number: P/21/1639 Reasons for refusal 01. The proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5, DM5 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the commercial business would detract from the established character of the surrounding locale and adversely impact upon the established amenity of the area. The proposal will therefore have a significant adverse impact upon residential amenity in the local area. Reason(s) for decision The development introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity of the area and is not inkeeping with the character of the locale and as such is contrary to Policies 3, 5, DM1 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021). Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status Location Plan Refused Block Plan Refused Floor Plan Refused Front Elevation Refused East Side Elevation Refused Front (South) Elevation Refused West Side Elevation Refused 107
Page 108
108
Page 109
Consultation Responses Response dated 28 January 2022 from Environmental Services Response dated 31 January 2022 from Roads and Transportation Services Appendix 2(b) 4c 109
Page 110
110
Page 111
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director Michael McGlynn Fleet and Environmental Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: 08457 406080 Minicom: 01698 454039 Email: kaye.venner@southlanarkshire.gcsx.gov.uk To: Planning & Building Standards Services Our Ref. KAV/458522 Your Ref. P/21/1639 If Calling Ask for Kaye Venner CC: Phone 07795455061 From: Kaye Venner Date. 28 January 2022 Subject: Application Ref: P/21/1639 Address: 5 Kenmar Terrace Hamilton South Lanarkshire ML3 0LT Proposed Development: Erection an outbuilding within the rear curtilage of a end terrace 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; ADV NOTE 1. Commercial Premises: Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 etc The applicant is advised that as the premises will be used for commercial purposes, the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulations made thereunder will apply. The applicant is advised to contact Environmental Services at an early stage of the project, to ensure compliance with current legislation, so that difficulties do not arise when the development is operational. Environmental Services, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB. ADV NOTE 5. Formal action may be taken if nuisance occurs. None of the above conditions will preclude formal action being taken by the Executive Director of Community Resources against the person responsible for any nuisance which may arise due to the operation of the proposed development ADV NOTE ES11: 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. Should you require any further information, please contact Kaye Venner. Kaye Venner Technical Officer 4c 111
Page 112
112
Page 113
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director Michael McGlynn Roads and Transportation Services – Transportation Engineering Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Email: enterprise.hq@southlanarkshire.gov.uk To: Planning and Economic Development Planning Application No: P/21/1639 Case Officer: Lauren Love From: Development Management Roads and Transportation Services Contact: Mark Wilkie Date: 31 January 2022 Subject: OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION P/21/1639 Location: 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton I refer to the above application for the erection of outbuilding within the rear curtilage of end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business. Access would be taken onto Kenmar Terrace via a widened existing private access. There is adequate visibility of 2m x 43m onto Kenmar Terrace. The widening would require a Road Opening Permit under S.56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act. The first 4m of the access should be constructed in hardstanding, to prevent spillage of deleterious material onto the public road. For a 3-bed house plus hairdressing business, at least 3 off-street car parking spaces are required. 3 car parking spaces are available, which is acceptable. This service would wish to support this application. Engineering Manager 4c 113
Page 114
114
Page 115
Representations Representation From Dated Theresa Gallacher, by email 28/02/22 Andrew Herron, by email 28/02/22 Pamela Sneddon, by email 03/03/22 Michelle McCluskey, by email 07/03/22 Hannah Pate, by email 09/03/22 Jude Herron, by email 09/03/22 Frank Rooney, by email 10/03/22 Lee Morgan, by email 11/03/22 Arlene McCrory, by email 11/03/22 Petition Various Appendix 2(c) 4d 115
Page 116
116
Page 117
4d 117
Page 118
118
Page 119
4d 119
Page 120
120
Page 121
4d 121
Page 122
122
Page 123
4d 123
Page 124
124
Page 125
4d 125
Page 126
126
Page 127
4d 127
Page 128
128
Page 129
4d 129
Page 130
130
Page 131
4d 131
Page 132
132
Page 133
4d 133
Page 134
134
Page 135
4d 135
Page 136
136
Page 137
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 4e 137
Page 138
138
Page 139
Photo 1 4e 139
Page 140
Photo 2 140
Page 141
Photo 3 141
Page 142
142
Page 143
Photo 1 4e 143
Page 144
144
Page 145
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 4f 145
Page 146
146
Page 147
Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Email james.wright@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 01698 455903 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Ms Leanne Grattan 5 Kenmar Terrace Hamilton ML3 0LT Our Ref: P/21/1639 Your Ref: If calling ask for: James Wright Date: 13 June 2022 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of outbuilding within the rear curtilage of end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) Site address: 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, Application no: P/21/1639 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 www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk 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 James Wright on 01698 455903 The Planning Service is undertaking a Customer Satisfaction Survey in order to obtain feedback about how we can best improve our Service to reflect the needs of our customers. The link to the survey can be found here: If you were the applicant: http://tinyurl.com/nrtgmy6 If you were the agent: http://tinyurl.com/od26p6g We would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to answer the questions in the survey based on your experience of dealing with the Planning Service in the past 12 months. We value your opinion and your comments will help us to enhance areas where we are performing well, but will also show us where there are areas of the service that need to be improved. 4f 147
Page 148
I do hope you can take part in this Customer Survey and look forward to receiving your comments in the near future. If you prefer to complete a paper version of the survey, please contact us by telephone on 0303 123 1015, selecting option 7, quoting the application number. We will send you a copy of the survey and a pre-paid envelope to return it. Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Economic Development Enc: 148
Page 149
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Ms Leanne Grattan Per: 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, With reference to your application received on 06.09.2021 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of outbuilding within the rear curtilage of end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) Site location: 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT, 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: 13th June 2022 Head of Planning and Economic Development 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 Economic Development Application no. P/21/1639 149
Page 150
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/21/1639 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 5, DM5 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) as the commercial business would detract from the established character of the surrounding locale and adversely impact upon the established amenity of the area. The proposal will therefore have a significant adverse impact upon residential amenity in the local area. Reason(s) for decision The development introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity of the area and is not inkeeping with the character of the locale and as such is contrary to Policies 3, 5, DM1 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021). 150
Page 151
Notes to applicant Application number: P/21/1639 Important The following notes do not form a statutory part of this decision notice. However, it is recommended that you study them closely as they contain other relevant information. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status Location Plan Refused Block Plan Refused Floor Plan Refused Front Elevation Refused East Side Elevation Refused Front (South) Elevation Refused West Side Elevation Refused 151
Page 152
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. 152
Page 153
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant L Marshall (formerly L Grattan) Appendix 5 4g 153
Page 154
154
Page 155
4g 155
Page 156
156
Page 157
157
Page 158
158
Page 159
159
Page 160
160
Page 161
161
Page 162
162
Page 163
Appeal for planning permission P/21/1639 5 Kenmar Terrace Hamilton ML3 0LT Personal statement from leanne Marshall I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for giving me the right to appeal. I know it must be difficult for you having to make these tough decisions, and each case must be so different. I can’t imagine the backlog of work you have to get through after the past 2 years, so I really appreciate you taking the time to look and read through my situation. I admit to you now I have been wrong. It is my responsibility to check everything that came along with building my salon. And mine only. Yes I trusted my neighbour to build my salon compliant and legally. Yes I believed I didn’t need planning permission. I was naive. But being naive is not an excuse. And the last thing I want to do is make you read a bunch of excuses, so I won’t add any in! I will however apologise now. For if I had done things the correct way from the beginning, you would have one thing less to do in your busy day, and time for a cup of tea! My passion is my career, I love helping people. Wether that be with their mental health, or appearance. Often in my line of work, it’s both. I take pride in my work and absolutely love my job. Working from home has given me time to support my husband and daughter at a very difficult time in our lives. I am very proud that I can show my daughter a good work ethic for her future. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say the past two years have been extremely challenging. I’m sure you have had your own struggles during these difficult times too, I hope they have passed for you. I have found it mostly challenging with being a close contact service, between the year of 2020-2022 at least 50% of the time unable to work due to covid restrictions. I was not entitled to any extra help financially, so we made it through solely on my husbands wage. 1 163
Page 164
Serval months after the wooden structure was completed all neighbours were very supportive and visited me for hair appointments, particularly my elderly neighbour who tends pop his head in and see if I can give him a quick trim. Summer was approaching so we used the shed along side our house. It is not only used for me to work in. But to also provide a place for my daughter to play with her friends and family. We use it along side our house for toilet trips to the dwelling, birthday parties, family get togethers Christmas dinner as my father in law can’t manage stairs. We were able to invite him for dinner It is perfect for privacy. The wooden shed has brought a lot of joy to our family. I like to use the shed for yoga on my own or with friends, my daughter finds it a great place to focus on her homework as there is no distractions. DETAILS OF WORKING PATTERNING I work solely on my own with no staff, offering a one to one basis on each service giving a more personal experience to each client. Working hours Wednesday 9am to 5pm Thursday 9am to 3pm Friday 9am to 5pm Saturday 9am to 3pm Duration of each service taken for each client Colour cut and blow-dry 3-4 hours Colour and extension 4-5 hours Cut and blow dry 1 hour Most Saturdays I could be out with working at wedding venues doing bridal hair. During working hours I also volunteer at connect to renewables helping young adults with working skills. There is no set days for this but should be considered with working hours provided. 2 164
Page 165
Hours of business is respectful to sociable hours, and are sympathetic to the area not before 9am or after 7pm I could accommodate 1-4 clients maximum on my 9am -5pm days On my 9am-3pm days I could accommodate 1-2 clients maximum. This information was given to all planning officers that had took on my case. :Richard smith :Karen Brown :Byron Sharp :Gwen Henry :Lauren love However unfortunately this was not in the full report. 3-4 clients per day were considered when the decision was made by James wright. I fear that James was not provided with all the information submitted when he came to his decision. I have found it difficult corresponding with many planning officers throughout my application, son can only imagine how hard it must have been to hand over the same application so many times. I have looked at the online portal since the decision, and I can see there that many documents have not been uploaded, so I don’t know if James even got to read them. I really hope all the information will be given to you so you can come to your own judgement and make a decision about the future of my business. During the time of my application, I kept a diary of how each and every client would travel to me. Would they drive, walk or cycle. I’ve added this here for you now: At least 60%of my clients stay within 20 mins walking distance. 30% park in my driveway ( some are blue badge holders) 10% could get the train or bus I always encourage my clients to walk when possible. This goes inline with the 20 min neighbourhood that the Scottish government have in place. This is to help small businesses recover from covid 19. The 20 minute neighbourhood is one of the proposals in the fourth National Planning Framework. I’m positive you know much more about it than I do : https://www.gov.scot/ publications/scotlands-fourth-national-planning-framework-position-statement/ 3 165
Page 166
As we are in a climate and mental health crisis walking or cycling most certainly helps with this, my clients do take this advice by walking or cycling. On a personal level I myself like to be mindful of our planet and environment. Working from home allows me to contribute to low admissions helping the environment/climate change and keep the admissions low. My car is parked at my home every day and is used as little as possible. -LOCATION Hamilton west train station is directly situated at the back of the rear of the house. Hearing the announcements from the train station whilst sitting in the garden and also in the house. The train station is a short walk to my house. This is a perfect location for my clients that use public transport. Approximately 11 min walk from my house 0.5 mi distance. It is a great location to the Hamilton retail park shopping centre clients, friends and family are more entice to shop at the retail park when visiting, this also helps support other local businesses. The last thing I wish to do is disrupt the character of the street. My family have lived here for 8 years. I respect the area and people around me. I completely understand that my neighbour's would want to keep traffic to a minimum on Kenmar Terrace as we do live in a cul de sac. I myself would like to keep traffic to a minimum this is why me and my husband have built a 4 car driveway so that no car or client will take up any space on the road what so ever. I do however, feel some information regarding ‘the character’ of the street, had not been known previously and included in the report. So therefore could not have been taken into consideration at the time of the decision. I’ll include a quick overview for you. There are 3 other households that run a businesses operating in the cul-de-sac, 4 including mine. This includes a building company that holds all building supplies and tools on the property, an air b&b, a bouncy castle and events company, a taxi service, and a cleaning company along with company van. I would like to highlight the fact that 2 business vans, and a business car, park in the cul-de-sac and not a private driveway. I know I will be treated with fairness, and if 4 166
Page 167
there is differentiation as to why my planning has been refused once this has been considered, I will accept and respect it completely. I also spoke with many of my neighbours and spoke about how they felt towards me working from home in the garden, and some of them said they didn’t even know for the first few months. A lot of them didn’t have any problem with parking/cars as they saw my driveway getting extended. Also, roads and traffic do not have any objection, as I contacted them also and got a statement (which is provided in the report, I can send it to you directly if you don’t have it there) The terrace is not a listed area has no special characteristics to consider. The wooden structure is sympathetic to the landscape and is not raised or blocking the horizon. Looking from the front of the street there is no obvious signs that the shed exists or its purpose. As perviously stated most clients are local within walking distance or can cycle there is no impact at the front of the street at all. Business hours are sympathetic and not before 9am or after 7pm. I am aware that there has been no further complaints at least half the street are more than happy to support my very small clientele. I am aware I have two clients who hold blue badges and would need to park as close to the shed as possible. I have asked if they could gently close their doors or leave them just halfway closed. Or maybe bring they're mobility scooter to their appointments as it will not have any doors to close and keep disruption to a minimum. I am aware this was raised in the report. I would not like to discriminate my two clients that would need to use my driveway to park at my house. For there appointments I feel it would be complete discrimination to ask them not to visit for this reason. 5 167
Page 168
-My objection points to the refusal under the basic of 3-4 clients two days a week. I do not find this a lot of visits in two days out of seven, I would expect more visits daily on a 7 day week from personal delivery’s/ family and friends. To which I have five siblings, I am one of 27 grandchildren. I have a big family that could visit double the amount of clients I could have. I am more than happy to amend 3-4 clients to less on these set days (Wednesday and Friday) or have it to a maximum of visits. Could I be more guided on this as it is not clear or transparent, within the working from home policy. My business is not at a commercial level and would not sustain a commercial rental. I feel if i was pushed to take on a commercial letting I would not survive financially. I would like to stress that my family has sadly lost my brother in law in the most horrifying way early last year. Working from home puts me in the best position to give myself, daughter and husband the emotional support that we can give to each other as a family. Since covid 19 the UK were told to work from home when possible, this was a big factor in the reasoning of building the structure, and as time went on, everything else just fitted in and came together. I hope in the near future I will be in a better position to move to a commercial rental. But at present with the low volume of clientele and the cost of living increasing I do not see this being possible at present. I am more than happy to amend any working hours or volume of visits if you think that would be more appropriate. And I would take on any knowledge and advisories you give, from everything you know of similar cases. Planning applications approved of a smilier nature : P/22/0352 newlands farm road east kilbride, change of use of existing summer house to dog grooming business in residential area. :P/21/2022 change of use of shed to dog grooming salon 14 Maclean place east kilbride approved in residential area opening hours 9-5pm Monday to Friday, Sat 9-1pm P/20/1378 change of use of basement area to dog grooming salon. 40 millheagh brea larkhall in residential area P/18/1311 erection of out building in rear gardens dog grooming business 15 Mornington grove blackwood approved Monday to Friday 8am-8pm Sat 8am-1pm 6 168
Page 169
7 169
Page 170
WORKING FROM HOME POLICY Reference to a. THE MAIN USE OF THE PROPERTY REMAINS AS THE DWELLING. The garden structure also being used for the purpose incidental to the use of the dwelling, when not used in connection with the business. I consider that the design and scale of the development would not draw the eye as appearing dominant or obtrusive in relation to the surrounding dwelling. The home remains the main use and the salon is still ancillary. Change of use has occurred to a mixed use compromising two primary uses, namely a residential one and a place of work. Environmental health have no objections, i refer to the delegated report. There is no noise outside and around other neighbouring properties in terms of noise. As work is carried out within the wooden structure that is sound proof and double glazed. Clients do not gather around the cul-de-sac or at the premises, the arrival and departing is staggered therefor not build up of traffic causing no disturbance. In addition there is a short walk from the driveway to the wooden structure if clients choose to drive it is unlikely to cause noise or to endure for very long. There is a low level of clientele 1-4 visiting at a scale would not be inconsistent with that of a large family. I would not be creating any smell or dirt, as the work is within an enclosed building. Adverse impact on the residential amenity I find no compelling reason why the use of the property as a whole for the business including the garden area and structure, in accordance with the aforementioned limitation, would result in material harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regards to noise from clients walking parking in driveway or cycling. b. THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE IMPACT OR PUBLIC SAFTEY RESULTING FROM TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE USE. I would be required to provide at least 3 off street parking, to which is provided roads and traffic have no objections. There is no traffic gathered as I can only work on one client at a time and give myself time in-between appointments to clean and sanitise working area for the next appointment. As stated most clients are local and are within walking distance most clients 8 170
Page 171
would attend on foot. The development does not result in harm to highway and pedestrian safety. c. Driveway at the dwelling can facilitate car parking and is satisfied by roads and transport. There are no other employees on the premises or in the work space I am a sole operator. d. Working hours are within sociable hours and are sympathetic to the character of the street. I would work Wednesday to Saturday, being closed every Sunday and Monday which would tie in with bank holidays or public holidays causing no impact on holidays in the surrounding area. Reference to officer report 5.7 as it mentions weekends I only work one day at the weekend and for a short period. As stated there are other dwellings being used as a place of work within the cul-de-sac therefore I feel the report has failed to provide evidence to identify how the development would harm the character. The principle of providing a hair service would not be an unusual or alien concept. In principle the provision of accessible hair service would consistent with the sustainable development of healthy communities. I would also like to add that there has been no objections with environmental health I do not fully understand the comment on para 5.8 refers to as disamenity of the street? It is as my understanding that there is no record of any site visits to the cal-de-sac as stated in an email from the council there is no evidence of the true character of the cal-de-sac. In terms of detailed design the building would be substantially screened from the property its self as it is at the rear of the dwelling, and by boundary fencing. The design and scale of the development would not draw the eye as appearing dominant or obtrusive in relation to the surrounding dwellings. In terms of the design and development would not result in harm to the character of the area this does not conflict with the council local plan or with the national planning policy framework. That seek to promote high quality sustainable design that responds positively to its surroundings it is also up to date with todays living as most people choose to work from home. I consider that my working hours go along with the same working hours as other neighbours, the cul-de-sac is mostly empty during my working hours as most residents are also at work. If clients do drive to appointment they would only have to drive passed 2 other dwellings as my house is the 3rd house down from the top of the cul-de-sac. Having no impact on the bottom of the cul de sac. Most neighbours have driveways for there own cars there for no cars are ever parked out side any other house hold that is not the own car e. No commercial vehicles are used for the business. 9 171
Page 172
f. Not sale of retail taking place. g. No delivery’s are associated with the business h. There is no external storage of materials needed for the business i. I have taken the time to note of how many clients visit and how they arrive for their appointment between the months of July 2022 to August 2022. 10 June S M T W T F S 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 July 2022 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 Driveway=2 by foot=1 Driveway=2. By foot=1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED Driveway=1 by foot=2 Driveway= 2 Driveway=2 by foot=2 Driveway=1 By foot=2 10 11 12 13 14 9 16 CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 18 19 20 21 10 23 CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED Driveway=3 by foot=1 Driveway=1 By foot=2 Driveway=2 by foot=1 Driveway=1 By foot=1 1w 25 26 27 28 11 30 CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED Driveway=3 by foot=0 Driveway=1 By foot=2 Driveway=2 by foot=1 Driveway=1 By foot=2 2w 1 2 3 4 12 6 August S M T W T F S 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 July S M T W T F S 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 August 2022 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 Closed Closed Driveway=2. By foot =1 Driveway =1 By foot=1 Driveway =2. by foot =1 Bridal party working outwit dwelling. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Closed Closed Closed Driveway=2. By foot =1 COURT against neighbours Driveway =3 Driveway =0. By foot =3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Closed Closed Closed Driveway=2. By foot =1 0 clients Driveway =2. by foot =0 Driveway =2 By foot =1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Closed Closed Closed Driveway=1 By foot =2 Driveway =1 By foot=2 Driveway =2. by foot =1 Bridal party working outwit dwelling. 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 Closed Closed Closed Driveway=3 By foot =1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 September S M T W T F S 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 172
Page 173
I would just like to go over some of the objections on my planning application, I will reference the planning application comments below. Planning application comment 1: Mr Andrew Herron To quote ‘ it is clearly stated on the deeds for our properties under no circumstances can u run a business from home’ I would just like take this time to address that it was Mr Andrew Herron that built the wooden structure with his two sons, Tony Herron and Jude Herron, also residents of 7 Kenmar Terrace. Mr Herron has had his own building company by the name of Herron builders (linked) and accepted a payment of around £10,000 from me to complete the project. Knowing full well that the wooden structure would be used for the purpose of a salon, this goes right back to the design stage. I have evidence for this, however it is an ongoing court case and so therefore the deeds are currently under court proceedings. Mr Herron and all parties are legally barred from taking any legal action with regards to objecting, due the fact he built it himself and profited through his company. ‘As much as they have concreted there front garden for parking there is major issues with parking’ I completely agree with this statement, in fact, Mr Herron has been arrested a few times for parking his 12 ft van across the front of my driveway, which he is now in criminal court proceedings. He does not have any private parking, therefore all of his vehicles (Audi A6, van and motorbike) all get parked on public path and Cul-de-Sac. This is a contributing factor for my clients walking. ‘Using COVID as a reason to work from home that’s fine if you're in the house on a computer not bring approximately 200 clients per month into such a small terrace’ This part of the statement I’m still unsure of the meaning. I wasn’t aware of any government advice stating that you were only allowed to work from home if you were in possession of a computer. Everything else stated is complete fabrication. I have already contacted SEPRA who informed me of my legal obligations with regards to hazardous chemicals. I am completely exempt due to the nature of business. I do however, work alongside green circle salons. Where we dispose of our waste in a manner that looks after the environment, and reduces my carbon footprint. 11 173
Page 174
There has also been two complaints from Jude Herron and Michelle McCluskey from number 7 Kenmar Terrace, stating the same complaints as Mr Andrew Herron. Due to the extend of the threatening behaviour, derogatory remarks and abuse we have received from Mr Andrew Herron, Jude Herron, and Michelle McCluskey, the court had a harassment order issued against them. Which they continuously breach, resulting in being arrested serval times, and now charged in a criminal court of law. They will be sentenced this September and December 2022. 12 174
Page 175
This has been on going for over one year now and the affect it has had on my daughter Marilyn is in despicable. She is now in therapy treatment due to anxiety, stress and trauma. This is affecting her every day life and school life. The head teacher is involved as much as she can be to support Marilyn through this time and has attached a supporting letter. To conclude my business hours are no earlier than 9am and no later than 5pm, 80% of whom walk to the salon or cycle. I have extended my driveway to fit 4 cars at one time, so cars from my household and salon will never be parked on the street. Only on my own property. Environmental health have no objections. The complaints I have are from 3 people who profited and built the building. The rest of the complaints are from fellow neighbours that are 13 175
Page 176
too scared to stand up and feel threatened after what they have had to witness. Those same people have also just been convicted of malicious misconduct and acting in a threatening manner. Crime reference HM22002445 HM22006711 This case has not been unnoticed by the media and newspapers and I have been approached by the papers for the story. At present I do not wish to go down this route as I do not want to add any more aggression or upset to the situation. Objection from number 3 kenmar terrace states that the parking issues are more to do with the air b&b. My sister left Scotland 6 months ago, and so no longer parks her car in the driveway or the street. During my working hours there would only be one car in the driveway as it belongs to me. My husband doesn’t return from work until 6pm, which leaves 3 spaces on my own private property for parking. Objection from number 11 I believe that he refers to the time number 7 completely blocked the street with the their black Audi A6 parked in the middle. 14 176
Page 177
Objections from number Pamela sneddon 12 and Theresa Gallagher number 15 -Salon was not built as long as 18 months at the time of objection. -always a street with parking issues mostly with residents -residents park on pavement not clients, they use driveway. -noise of hairdryer? I do not think a hairdryer can be heard from that far away. -chatting? People chat in there garden -people in and out of cars? With the distance between the houses I am surprised that this has all been noticed? Especially with the low level of cars that come in to the street at visit myself. And again I have family and friends that visit not every person that comes to my property is getting there hair done or clients. I do not find these objections credible. Objections -Hannah pate Hannahs address is not in kenmar terrace it is 16 batters gardens which is a 15 min drive away. Objection Arlene Mccrony -not a resident of kenmar terrace -lack of parking in general not due to salon -salon would not be known to any passers buys act as it is situated in my garden. I do not accept an new clients and only stick to regular clients. Objection from Doreen Nicole - you will see in officers report that no covid rules have been broken. 15 177
Page 178
Out with working hours car and van parking on curbs from residents. 16 178
Page 179
Ambulance unable to get down the street. Not due to anyone from my dwelling my white car is my driveway. 17 179
Page 180
Before starting work no cars at the bottom of street and driveway is clear. 18 180
Page 181
Picture taking for the purpose of previous picture. Street is quiet during working hours and most people are at work. 19 181
Page 182
Before starting work one company van parked on curb. Driveway is clear 20 182
Page 183
Van obstructing turning point. Anyone visiting my dwelling or others struggle to get passed here.this is one reason why clients choose to walk or park in driveway as this is difficult to navigate passed. 21 183
Page 184
Company car and taxi parked on curb. Not anyone visiting my property CLIENTS COMMUTING At least 70% of my small clientele are within walking distance I fully encourage that all should walk or cycle to their appointments. Firstly this helps with low admissions there for it is good for the environment, I feel very passionate about the climate change bill. If people should drive especially for a few that hold a blue badge do and will park only on my driveway. That is still private to all other neighbours with only a 6 foot fence at the other side. Myself and husband went to extra expense so that our own two cars were not on the street, and parked in the driveway on the other side. Therefore, there would not be a build up of traffic on the road at any point. I have supporting statements from the majority of clients. I’ll enclose these at the end. If there is any part of this appeal that arises questions for you, I urge you to reach out to call, or email me. I’m happy to go over anything, or explain anything further. If you need further statements, I will gladly get those for you. Although I believe I have included everything that you will need to form a picture of my situation and make a decision about the future of my business. I also don’t want to prolong this for you as I can only imagine how much work you are all trying to get through with a backlog of work after the past couple of years. 22 184
Page 185
Thanking you in advance Leanne Marshall. Client and friends supports statements below. 23 185
Page 186
186
Page 187
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review P Sneddon by email A Herron by email C Graham by email Appendix 6 4h 187
Page 188
188
Page 189
STATEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS Planning Application No. P/21/1639 Erection of outbuilding within the rear curtilage of end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton, ML3 0LT 1.0 Planning Background 1.1 A retrospective planning application was submitted for the erection of an outbuilding in the rear curtilage of a domestic property for the use as a commercial hairdressing business. Following due consideration of the proposals, including consulting with the Roads and Transportation Services (Development Management Team) and Environmental Services the planning application was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 13th June 2022. The report of handling sets out the decision and the reasons for refusal are listed in the decision notice. These documents are available elsewhere within the papers. 1.2 The application site is located within an established residential area of Hamilton. The property is located at one end of a block of four properties. The street is a relatively small cul-de-sac of approximately 16 properties and is not a thoroughfare for any traffic and solely serves residents. 2.0 Assessment against the development plan and other relevant policies 2.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended requires that an application for planning permission is determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 2.2 In terms of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021), the following policies are applicable:- • Policy 2: Climate Change • Policy 3: General Urban Areas and Settlements • Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking • Policy DM1: New Development Design • Policy DM12: Working from Home 2.3 The application site is designated as being within a general urban area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 2021 (SLLDP2). As such, Policy 3 advises developments which would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and the wider community or to the character of the surrounding area will not be permitted. Developments particularly ‘bad neighbour’ uses which by virtue of visual impact, noise, smell, air pollution, disturbance, traffic, or public safety will not be permitted if they are detrimental to the amenity of residents. Each proposal will be judged on its own merits with particular consideration given to the impact on the amenity of the area, proposed servicing and parking arrangements and where appropriate an assessment of the contribution of the proposal to meet an identified local need. 4h 189
Page 190
2.4 Policy 2 - Climate change of SLLDP2 requires new development where possible to seek to minimize and mitigate against the effects of climate change. It is noted that the retrospective proposal does not involve any large-scale construction and has been constructed with a sustainable building material. It is therefore not considered to have a significant detrimental impact upon the water and soils environment nor biodiversity. 2.5 Policy 5 - Development management and placemaking states that development proposals should take account of and be integrated within the local context and built form. Development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on the local community and there should be no significant adverse impact on adjacent buildings in terms of layout, scale, massing, design, external materials or amenity as well as no adverse implications for public safety. This policy is further supported within SLLDP2 Policy DM1 – Design. 2.6 Policy DM12 - Working from Home states that there should be no adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of noise, disturbance, smell and dirt generated by the business or by members of the public visiting the premises. There should be no adverse impact on traffic or public safety resulting from traffic generated by the proposed use and satisfactory provision for car-parking and servicing is in place. 2.7 In assessment, it was noted that the design, scale and siting of the outbuilding was in keeping with the domestic garden in which it sits but the use of the outbuilding as a commercial hairdresser is considered not to be compatible within the surrounding residential area. 2.8 It was therefore considered that the nature of the operations would result in introducing visitors up to 4 times a day, 4 days a week (including on a Saturday) into a quiet residential cul-de-sac. It was considered that, as the street is not a thoroughfare, the current amenity and character of the street is that of one serving only its residents and therefore the introduction of a commercial business with visiting customers is not in keeping with the character of the locale and introduces disharmony into the existing amenity of the street. 2.9 In conclusion, following a detailed assessment of the proposals it was considered that whilst the design and siting of the outbuilding was in keeping with the area and did not impinge upon the amenity of surrounding neighbours, it’s use as a commercial hairdressing business was not considered acceptable within the area and did have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbours. In this regard the proposal was therefore not deemed to be in accordance with Policies 3, 5, DM1 and DM12 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021). 3.0 Observations on applicants Notice of Review 3.1 The applicants have submitted a statement to support their review. The grounds are summarised below:- 190
Page 191
(a) The shed is not only used for the hairdressing business and is used for domestic purposes as well. Response: To clarify, as noted in the Report of Handling, it is considered that the building is suitable in terms of design and location as a domestic outbuilding. It is the commercial use that is considered inappropriate. The Enforcement Team would not seek to take any further action if it was solely used for domestic purposes. (b) Details on Working Hours Response: The original planning assessment was made on the working times submitted by the applicant as part of the planning application as set out in the Report of Handling. It is for the applicant to submit the relevant information as part of a planning application and not Council Officers. In terms of the hours provided as part of the review, it is noted that they are not that materially different than those submitted as part of the planning application and still involve 4 days a week, including a Saturday. It is not clear what level of Saturday working may be off site for weddings rather than on site. The duration of the works state that the minimum duration of appointment could be an hour and therefore it is considered that this contradicts the statement that only 2 appointments could be accommodated within a 9am to 3pm day given that could only take up 2 hours of the day. (c) Information in front of the Planning Officer Response: The Planning Application was submitted following the requirement to take Enforcement Action and any Enforcement correspondence is separate to any planning application. The applicant made the planning submission themselves and as noted in (b) above, it is their responsibility to ensure that all relevant information was submitted as part of the application. The planning submission is in order and adequate to allow a detailed assessment to be made. The applicant would be able to resubmit all information as part of this review. (d) The level of customers visiting is similar to large families and can be further limited if required. Response: Normal domestic visitors do not fall within the remit of the Planning Authority whilst operating a commercial enterprise does and therefore it requires to be assessed against the Development Plan and any other material considerations. In this instance, it is the quiet nature of the street that is considered to make it inappropriate for operation of a business of this nature. Limiting customer numbers would be hard to enforce and difficult for the applicant to fully approve compliance with any limit. The crux of the matter is the nature of the street being unsuitable for a commercial business with visiting clients. (e) Customers are local and most do not need to drive Response: Again it is considered that this would be hard to enforce and for the applicant to demonstrate compliance if complaints are made. (f) Roads and Environmental Services did not object to the application. Response: Noted and this was clearly stated within the Report of Handling. 191
Page 192
(g) Response to objections Response: It is considered that Section 4 of the Report of handling sums up the objections and that there is nothing further to add in Planning terms. 4.0 Conclusions 4.1 In summary, the proposed commercial use does not accord with the provisions of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 relating to Policies 3, 5 DM1 and DM12. In addition, there are no material considerations which outweigh the provisions of the development plan. It is therefore respectfully requested that the Review Body refuse planning permission for the retrospective proposal. 192
Page 193
From: Pamela Sneddon To: McLeod, Stuart Subject: Planning review Date: 07 October 2022 06:48:48 4h 193
Page 194
194
Page 195
Hi there I’m enclosing pictures of the parking situation on my street one picture from a Friday night & the other Saturday late afternoon. The hours of business on the planning application do not match with the hours the salon is open and this can be confirmed with the salon’s social media. Regards Pamela Sneddon Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 195
Page 196
196
Page 197
From: Andrew Herron Sent: 09 October 2022 15:02 To: Jessup, Shona <Shona.Jessup@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton Evidence of not working to the hours on planning application most nights works to 9p.m occasionally 10p.m (Videos attached to the above email have been redacted in terms of The Data Protection Act 2018) From: Andrew Herron < Sent: 09 October 2022 15:05 To: Jessup, Shona <Shona.Jessup@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton Her house is currently under offer so either trying to sell house with a business or hanging planning out to carry on working until she moves 4h 197
Page 198
From: Andrew Herron Sent: 16 October 2022 18:32 To: Jessup, Shona <Shona.Jessup@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton Evidence Leanne Marshall isn't working to times on application for salon works most nights to at least 9 p.m occasionally 10 p.m with slot more than 4 or 5 clients a day more like 10 to 12 clients per day From: Andrew Herron Sent: 16 October 2022 18:33 To: Jessup, Shona <Shona.Jessup@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton I am sending in a couple of videos that shows Leanne Marshall still working up to 10pm in her salon which happens on a regular basis. Closing at 5 p.m is a rare occurrence 198
Page 199
1 McLeod, Stuart From: Graham Craig <jocky180.gc@googlemail.com> Sent: 12 October 2022 11:58 To: McLeod, Stuart Good morning Stuart Regarding ref no PLBR/NOR/HM/22/004 My name is Mr G Craig i stay opposite no 5 kenmar terrace i would like to say the residents at no 5 kenmar have done eveything possible regarding parking and there is no issues now with parking . Yours Sincerly Mr Graham Craig. 4h 199
Page 200
200
Page 201
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representations Submitted by Interested Parties in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 4i 201
Page 202
202
Page 203
1 McLeod, Stuart Subject: FW: Planning Local Review Body - 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton From: Paige Copeland Sent: 03 November 2022 14:10 To: McLeod, Karen <Karen.McLeod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body ‐ 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton Good morning Mr McLeod, Thank you for your email. The pictures unfortunately do not state a time nor a date, nor is it evidence that the vehicles on the driveway are customers. The screen shot of working hours taken from social media is extremely old and no longer even on social media, and again is not evidence of working hours. Can we state again this is primarily a home, visited by friends and family, just like most homes in the country. The report that Mrs Marshall submitted is accurate to todays date, with regards to hours and number of customers. I feel now this is becoming more of a malicious stalking situation, rather than a disagreement about parking and working hours. Kind regards Paige 4i 203
Page 204
From: Leanne Grattan To: McLeod, Stuart Subject: Date: Fwd: Planning Local Review Body - 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton 04 November 2022 12:15:33 Dear Stuart I would like to add further comments with regards to pictures provided. Pictures are showing both white vehicles that belong to my husband parked at the front of his own house and my car parked on my own driveway. Best wishes Mrs Marshall Sent from my iPhone 204
Page 205
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 21 November 2022 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/21/0909 for Sub- Division of Garden Ground to Form House Plot for a Two Storey Dwellinghouse (Planning Permission in Principle) 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: Planning Permission in Principle Applicant: E MacNeil Proposal: Sub-division of garden ground to form a house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (planning permission in principle) Location: 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G72 9BB Council Area/Ward: 15 – Blantyre 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] 5 205
Page 206
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:- 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 submissions from consultees (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. 206
Page 207
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 listed at and attached as Appendix 6. 6.2 The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received. Comments from the applicant are contained in the submissions attached as Appendix 7. Paul Manning Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 8 November 2022 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes We will work towards a sustainable future in sustainable places Good quality, suitable and sustainable places to live Thriving business, fair jobs and vibrant town centres Caring, connected, 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 207
Page 208
208
Page 209
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 5a 209
Page 210
210
Page 211
Page 1 of 7 Montrose House 154 Montrose Crescent Hamilton ML3 6LB 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 100411867-002 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. 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 The proposal is to sub divide the existing garden at No.17 and create a further plot for a single dwellinghouse at the rear of the property with its own access 5a 211
Page 212
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 Paul Eddie Hughes MacNeil 272 Bath St Rosebank Avenue 272 17 Blue Square G2 4JR G71 7SS United Kingdom Scotland Glasgow Blantyre 212
Page 213
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 describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing. Altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you propose to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. 17 ROSEBANK AVENUE 0.12 The proposed site is currently the garden ground for no.17 South Lanarkshire Council BLANTYRE GLASGOW G72 9BB 658029 269406 213
Page 214
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. Water Supply and Drainage Arrangements Will your proposal require new or altered water supply or drainage arrangements? * Yes No Do your proposals make provision for sustainable drainage of surface water?? * Yes No (e.g. SUDS arrangements) * Note:- Please include details of SUDS arrangements on your plans Selecting ‘No’ to the above question means that you could be in breach of Environmental legislation. Are you proposing to connect to the public water supply network? * Yes No, using a private water supply No connection required If No, using a private water supply, please show on plans the supply and all works needed to provide it (on or off site). 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. 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. 214
Page 215
Page 5 of 7 Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * Certificates and Notices CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013 One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E. Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate A Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate A I hereby certify that – (1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application. (2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding Signed: Paul Hughes On behalf of: Mr Eddie MacNeil Date: 13/05/2021 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * 215
Page 216
Page 6 of 7 Checklist – Application for Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) If this is a further application where there is a variation of conditions attached to a previous consent, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application b) If this is an application for planning permission or planning permission in principal where there is a crown interest in the land, have you provided a statement to that effect? * Yes No Not applicable to this application c) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle or a further application and the application is for development belonging to the categories of national or major development (other than one under Section 42 of the planning Act), have you provided a Pre-Application Consultation Report? * Yes No Not applicable to this application Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 d) If this is an application for planning permission and the application relates to development belonging to the categories of national or major developments and you do not benefit from exemption under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, have you provided a Design and Access Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application e) If this is an application for planning permission and relates to development belonging to the category of local developments (subject to regulation 13. (2) and (3) of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013) have you provided a Design Statement? * Yes No Not applicable to this application f) If your application relates to installation of an antenna to be employed in an electronic communication network, have you provided an ICNIRP Declaration? * Yes No Not applicable to this application g) If this is an application for planning permission, planning permission in principle, an application for approval of matters specified in conditions or an application for mineral development, have you provided any other plans or drawings as necessary: Site Layout Plan or Block plan. Elevations. Floor plans. Cross sections. Roof plan. Master Plan/Framework Plan. Landscape plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Other. If Other, please specify: * (Max 500 characters) 216
Page 217
Page 7 of 7 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 Paul Hughes Declaration Date: 14/05/2021 Payment Details Online payment: IDOX00008357 Payment date: 14/05/2021 08:42:00 Created: 14/05/2021 08:42 217
Page 218
218
Page 219
Report of Handling Report dated 29 June 2022 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 5b 219
Page 220
220
Page 221
Reference no. P/21/0909 Delegated Report Date 29 June 2022 Planning proposal: Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) Location: 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre G72 9BB Application Type : Permission in principle Applicant : Mr Eddie MacNeil Location : 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre G72 9BB Decision: Other action/notes: Application refused (1) None Report by: Area Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy Policy 2 - Climate Change Policy 3 - General Urban Areas and Settlements Policy 5 - Development Management and Place Making Policy DM1 - New Development Design Policy DM3 - Subdivision of Garden Ground 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 CER Biodiversity Officer Has no objections subject to conditions. The boundary of the application does not appear to match SLC ownership; this needs to be clarified before any works or approval begins. The development is adjacent to a proposed Local Nature Reserve (which matches the SLC ownership; therefore, the application boundary is currently within the pLNR). There should be no impact beyond the site boundary; all works including drainage should remain within the development site. 5b 221
Page 222
Countryside And Greenspace Arboricultural Services Roads Development Management Team Environmental Services Scottish Water This application site lies immediately adjacent to the Clyde Walkway and an area of woodland identified as a component of the strategic green network. There also appears to be a number of mature trees along and adjacent to the perimeter of the site where it borders onto the Walkway/Green network. It is unclear at this stage as to whether these trees will be affected by the development. It may require a condition to be applied to any consent granted for a tree protection zone. No response to date. Have no objection to the application subject to a condition requiring the construction of adequate car parking within the site. For a 2 or 3-bedroom house 2 off-street car parking spaces are required and for a 4 or more bedroom house 3 off-street car parking spaces are required. These should be in modules of 3m x 6m. Have no objection to the application. Have no objection to the application and have advised that there is there is currently sufficient capacity for a foul only connection in the Bothwellbank Waste Water Treatment works to service the proposed development. Representation(s): ► 1 Objection letter ► 0 Support letters ► 0 Comment letters Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The applicant seeks planning permission in principle for the sub-division of garden ground to form a house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse. The application site is bounded to the north and east by open space and woodland planting and to the south and west by residential properties. Whilst the application is for planning permission in principle an indicative plan has been submitted with the application showing the footprint of a detached dwellinghouse and a detached garage both located to the rear of the existing detached bungalow on the site. 1.2 The proposed dwelling would be positioned approximately 21 metres from the existing house and it is envisaged by the applicant that the principal rooms would have their main aspect to the north/east and south to minimise overlooking. It is proposed that the new dwelling would be 2 storey’s in height with a pitched roof orientated in the same direction as the existing house. The existing front garden and parking area would remain in place for the use of the existing dwelling. The rear garden for the existing dwelling would measure approximately 11 metres in depth. The existing garage which fronts onto Rosebank Avenue would be removed to allow for a shared hard surfaced refuse and recycling collection point. This area would be enclosed with a brick wall and offer the 222
Page 223
opportunity for signage for the proposed house. The occupiers of the proposed house would require to take their bins to this area for collection from their dedicated storage located adjacent to their parking area. A new double garage for the existing house would be located adjacent to the refuse collection point. An access ramp/driveway and an area of structured planting would be shared by both plots. The remainder of the site would be given to the proposed dwelling. A new double garage and dedicated parking area with a planted buffer zone would be provided to create a defined edge between the 2 plots with the existing access strip from Rosebank Avenue upgraded to create the dedicated access to the proposed plot mentioned above. The area to the north would be cleared and planted with new fencing to the proposed garden boundary. The existing brick wall to the neighbouring property (25/27 Rosebank Avenue) would be retained and repaired where necessary. 1.3 The supporting Design and Access Statement that has been lodged with the application states that the proposed sub-division of the garden ground and use for a new build dwelling complies with and meets the criteria in adopted Local Development Plan, relevant supplementary guidance and National Planning Guidance, that the subdivision of the plot will have no negative impact on the existing property nor the neighbouring properties and will address what is currently vacant unused land. It states that although the new dwelling will not have direct frontage to the street the new access will be clearly defined and that the traditional villa located at the end of Rosebank Avenue is similarly positioned back from the street so there is precedent locally to support this arrangement. 1.4 The application site is located within the General Urban Area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. The relevant policies in terms of the assessment of the application are Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy, Policy 2 - Climate Change, Policy 3 - General Urban Areas and Settlements, Policy 5 - Development Management and Place Making, Policy DM1 - New Development Design and Policy DM3 - Subdivision of Garden Ground. 2 Representation(s) 2.1 Statutory neighbour notification procedures were undertaken and the application was advertised in the Hamilton Advertiser under the heading Non-notification of neighbours. One letter of representation has been received in relation to the application. The grounds of objection are summarised below: a) The post code of the property on the notification notice does not correspond with the property or the surrounding area Response: The post code G72 9BB which was included to identify the application site on the neighbour notification letter appears to be correct. b) The ground that is being proposed for building is raised land against a large wall joined with our property. This is a single brick wall, not designed for building to take place on the said property. We are concerned the wall will collapse if work is carried out or heavy vehicles operate on the property. Response: Any damage to the neighbouring property would be a legal matter which requires to be resolved between the parties concerned. c) We believe our privacy will be impinged upon if a property is built on this land. Response: Whilst the application is for planning permission in principle, based on footprint shown on the indicative layout it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not have a significant adverse impact on the adjacent property in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. 223
Page 224
d) The property sits on a Private Road maintained by residents. Building work would result in wear/tear and damage to road. Response: Any damage to a private road would be a legal matter which requires to be resolved between the parties concerned. e) Possible problems with sewage and drainage access. Old system serving the old houses in full street is currently the only access available. Response: If planning permission was granted for the dwellinghouse satisfactory sewerage and drainage systems would have to be provided as part of the proposed development. 3 Assessment and Conclusions 3.1 The applicant seeks planning permission in principle for the sub-division of garden ground to form a house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The main determining issues therefore in the assessment of this application are whether the development is in compliance with national and local development plan policy and whether there are any other material planning considerations that would outweigh the provisions of the development plan. 3.2 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) advises that proposals should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and all developments should contribute to sustainable development. 3.3 Whilst the application is for planning permission in principle an indicative plan has been submitted with the application showing the footprint of a detached dwellinghouse and a detached garage both located to the rear of the existing detached bungalow on the site all as described in Section 1 of this report. As discussed, the application site is located within the general urban area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. In terms of the assessment of the application the main policy affecting the proposal in this instance is Policy DM3 which states that the development of a new house (or houses) within the curtilage of an existing house will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that the proposal complies with the following criteria: 1. The proposed house(s) is of a scale, massing, design and material sympathetic to the character and pattern of development in the area and does not result in a development that appears cramped, visually obtrusive or is of an appearance which is out of keeping with the established character or is harmful to the amenity of the area. 2. The proposed house plot(s) and that remaining to the existing house are comparable with those nearby in terms of size, shape, and amenity and accords with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed house(s) should have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages unless the proposal reflects the development pattern of the area. 4. The proposed vehicular access is of an adequate standard and will not have adverse implications for traffic safety or adversely affect the amenity of adjacent properties by virtue of noise or loss of privacy. 5. The garden space allocated to the proposed house(s) and that remaining for the existing house should be sufficient for the recreational and amenity needs of the occupants. 224
Page 225
6. The proposed development will not cause an unacceptable reduction in privacy to existing houses and will, itself, enjoy a level of privacy comparable with surrounding dwellings. 7. The proposed development will not overshadow adjacent properties to a degree which results in a significant loss of amenity for residents or is significantly adversely affected by overshadowing. 8. All existing features such as trees, hedges, walls, fences and buildings that contribute to the character of the area should be retained and should not be adversely affected by the development. 9. Adequate parking for both the proposed and existing house must be provided within the site and must not be harmful to the established character and amenity of the area. 10. The proposal must not jeopardise or be prejudicial to any future development proposals in the vicinity. 3.4 Following the submission of the application the applicant was asked to provide additional justification for the proposal to demonstrate that the development conforms with the above policy criteria. The submitted Design and Access Statement states that although the new dwelling will not have direct frontage to the street the new access will be clearly defined. It states that the traditional villa located at the end of Rosebank Avenue is similarly positioned back from the street so there is precedent locally to support this arrangement. The Design and Access Statement and the additional information submitted by the applicant also make reference to various planning applications that have been granted by the Council for new dwellings within the Blantyre and Uddingston areas. Of the seven examples provided by the applicant no information is available from the Council’s records in relation to the applicant’s Example 1 - Station Gate, Example 3 - Stonefield Road and Example 5 - Douglas Gardens. In terms of the applicant’s Example 2 - Handibode Gardens (HM/15/0473) this involves to the erection of 3 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom terraced dwellinghouses and ancillary works on a former bowling green on behalf of Clyde Valley Housing Association. Therefore, this planning application does not relate to the subdivision of garden ground for the development of a new house. With regard to the applicant’s Example 4 - Hunthill Road (HM/10/0250) the pattern/character of development appears to be quite different to that of Rosebank Avenue. The delegated report for the application stated that “The position of neighbouring residential properties adjacent to and located in close proximity to the site is irregular and generally do not follow an established ‘street pattern’ of development. Subsequently, whilst it is noted that the proposed development will not have a proper road frontage, many of the surrounding residential properties do not have a street frontage and therefore the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the established character of the area.” Reference was also made to the following planning applications in the applicant’s submission. P/18/0405 - Subdivision of garden ground to form house plot (Planning permission in principle) – 107 Townhead Street, Hamilton. I note from the delegated report that it was considered that “the proposed house plots; and that of the remaining property, are considered sympathetic to the surrounding area which contains a varied mix. The proposed house plot will have a proper road frontage and allow an acceptable level of garden ground to serve both properties.” P/19/0579 - Sub-division of garden to form three additional house plots (Planning permission in principle) Silverwood House, Blantyre Mill Road, Bothwell. I note from the delegated report that it was considered that “The proposed house plots; and that of the remaining property, are considered sympathetic to the surrounding area which contains a varied mix. The proposed house plots will have road frontages similar in arrangement to existing properties within the immediate area and allow an acceptable level of garden ground to serve the properties.” 3.5 The submitted Design and Access Statement essentially acknowledges that the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding 225
Page 226
curtilages when it states that although the new dwelling will not have direct frontage to the street the new access will be clearly defined. The above statement also makes reference to a traditional villa located at the end of Rosebank Avenue being similarly positioned back from the street so there is precedent locally to support this arrangement. Having visited the application site and viewed the submitted drawings I would not agree with this assessment as no dwelling appears to reflect this description. 3.6 The above examples submitted are noted, however, they are not considered to be relative to the area surrounding the current application site. I, therefore, remain unconvinced that the position of the proposed house, situated to the rear of the existing house, would be in keeping with the established character and pattern of the immediate area. The proposed dwellinghouse would not provide an appropriate road frontage of comparable size reflective of surrounding curtilages, a pre-requisite of Policy DM3. Policy DM3 also requires that both the proposed and remaining plots are sympathetic to the character and pattern of development in the area and do not result in a development that appears cramped, visually obtrusive or be of an appearance that is harmful to the character and amenity of the area. In this regard it is considered that the proposed dwellinghouse is a form of backland development which would generally be alien to the established character and pattern of development in the immediate area. I also have concerns regarding the extent of garden ground proposed for the existing ‘donor’ house comparing it to those nearby. Whilst the references to the above applications are noted I do not consider that they hold sufficient weight or carry enough reason to justify a departure from the development plan in this instance. I am satisfied that there are no material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the development plan and on this basis, it is considered that a departure from the development plan cannot be justified. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. The Local Development Plan 2 was adopted by the Council just prior to the application being submitted and it is considered that it would be an unsound and incorrect decision for the Council to grant an application which is fundamentally contrary to this Plan. 3.7 In addition to the above assessment it is worth highlighting that planning application P/20/1115 for the erection of a detached house at 45 Hunthill Road, Blantyre was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 27 January 2021 one of the reasons being that the proposal was contrary to Policy DM3 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house, would not be in keeping within the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed house would not retain a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. This decision was appealed by the applicant and following a review of the application, the Council’s Planning Local Review Body (PLRB) decided to uphold the decision taken in terms of the Scheme of Delegation. 3.8 In summary and in view of all of the above and the legal requirement to determine and assess all planning applications in terms of the provisions of the development plan, the proposal is considered to represent an unacceptable form of development at this location and is contrary to local plan policy as it fails to meet all of the criteria listed in Policy DM3. If approved, the proposal would also set an undesirable precedent which could encourage further similar applications for development within the Council’s area. There are no material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the development plan, therefore, a departure from the development plan in this instance cannot be justified. As such, it is considered that planning permission in principle should be refused for the reasons stated below. 4 Reason for decision 4.1 The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house would not be in keeping with the 226
Page 227
established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. Delegating officer: Bernard Darroch Date: 3 July 2022 Previous references P/20/1115 P/19/0579 P/18/0405 HM/15/0473 HM/10/0250 List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Outline Planning Design & Access Statement dated 05.11.2020 and email from agent dated 28 October 2021 ► Neighbour notification letter dated 09.06.2021 ► Press advertisement, Hamilton Advertiser dated 17.06.2021 ► Consultations CER Biodiversity Officer Countryside And Greenspace 22.06.2021 Roads Development Management Team 17.06.2021 Environmental Services 03.08.2021 Scottish Water 21.06.2021 ► Representations Jacqueline O'Donnelly, 27 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G72 9BB Dated: 08.07.2021 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Jim Blake, Planning officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 453657 Email: jim.blake@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 227
Page 228
Planning Application Application number: P/21/0909 Reason for refusal 01. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house would not be in keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. Informatives 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status 2101(EX)001 Refused 2101(EX)100 Refused 2101(00)100 Refused 228
Page 229
Consultation Responses Response dated 9 June 2021 from Scottish Water Response dated 17 June 2021 from Roads and Transportation Services Response dated 22 June 2021 from Countryside and Greenspace Services Response dated 30 June 2021 from Biodiversity Officer Response dated 28 July 2021 from Fleet and Environmental Services Appendix 2(b) 5c 229
Page 230
230
Page 231
To find out more about connecting your property to the water and waste water supply visit: www.scottishwater.co.uk/business/connections SW Public Published Wednesday, 09 June 2021 Local Planner Planning & Economic Development Community & Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council Hamilton ML3 8RE Dear Sir/Madam SITE: 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G72 9BB PLANNING REF: P/21/0909 OUR REF: DSCAS-0041938-ZBZ PROPOSAL: Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) Please quote our reference in all future correspondence Audit of Proposal Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and would advise the following: Water Capacity Assessment Scottish Water has carried out a Capacity review and we can confirm the following: There is currently sufficient capacity in CAMPS Water Treatment Works to service your development. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us. Waste Water Capacity Assessment There is currently sufficient capacity for a foul only connection in the BOTHWELLBANK Waste Water Treatment works to service your development. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us. Please Note Development Operations The Bridge Buchanan Gate Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6FB Development Operations Freephone Number - 0800 3890379 E-Mail - DevelopmentOperations@scottishwater.co.uk www.scottishwater.co.uk 5c 231
Page 232
To find out more about connecting your property to the water and waste water supply visit: www.scottishwater.co.uk/business/connections SW Public Published The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works for their proposed development. Once a formal connection application is submitted to Scottish Water after full planning permission has been granted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. Surface Water For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges. In order to avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to our combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should contact Scottish Water at the earliest opportunity with strong evidence to support the intended drainage plan prior to making a connection request. We will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. General notes: Scottish Water asset plans can be obtained from our appointed asset plan providers: Site Investigation Services (UK) Ltd Tel: 0333 123 1223 Email: sw@sisplan.co.uk www.sisplan.co.uk Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements to be installed, subject to compliance with Water Byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area, then they should write to the Customer Connections department at the above address. If the connection to the public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. Scottish Water may only vest new water or waste water infrastructure which is to be laid through land out with public ownership where a Deed of Servitude has been obtained in our favour by the developer. 232
Page 233
To find out more about connecting your property to the water and waste water supply visit: www.scottishwater.co.uk/business/connections SW Public Published The developer should also be aware that Scottish Water requires land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or SUDS proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed. Please find information on how to submit application to Scottish Water at our Customer Portal. Next Steps: All Proposed Developments All proposed developments require to submit a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form to be submitted directly to Scottish Water via our Customer Portal prior to any formal Technical Application being submitted. This will allow us to fully appraise the proposals. Where it is confirmed through the PDE process that mitigation works are necessary to support a development, the cost of these works is to be met by the developer, which Scottish Water can contribute towards through Reasonable Cost Contribution regulations. Non Domestic/Commercial Property: Since the introduction of the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 in April 2008 the water industry in Scotland has opened to market competition for non-domestic customers. All Non-domestic Household customers now require a Licensed Provider to act on their behalf for new water and waste water connections. Further details can be obtained at www.scotlandontap.gov.uk Trade Effluent Discharge from Non Dom Property: Certain discharges from non-domestic premises may constitute a trade effluent in terms of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Trade effluent arises from activities including; manufacturing, production and engineering; vehicle, plant and equipment washing, waste and leachate management. It covers both large and small premises, including activities such as car washing and launderettes. Activities not covered include hotels, caravan sites or restaurants. If you are in any doubt as to whether the discharge from your premises is likely to be trade effluent, please contact us on 0800 778 0778 or email TEQ@scottishwater.co.uk using the subject “Is this Trade Effluent?". Discharges that are deemed to be trade effluent need to apply separately for permission to discharge to the sewerage system. The forms and application guidance notes can be found here. Trade effluent must never be discharged into surface water drainage systems as these are solely for draining rainfall run off. For food services establishments, Scottish Water recommends a suitably sized grease trap is fitted within the food preparation areas, so the development 233
Page 234
To find out more about connecting your property to the water and waste water supply visit: www.scottishwater.co.uk/business/connections SW Public Published complies with Standard 3.7 a) of the Building Standards Technical Handbook and for best management and housekeeping practices to be followed which prevent food waste, fat oil and grease from being disposed into sinks and drains. The Waste (Scotland) Regulations which require all non-rural food businesses, producing more than 50kg of food waste per week, to segregate that waste for separate collection. The regulations also ban the use of food waste disposal units that dispose of food waste to the public sewer. Further information can be found at www.resourceefficientscotland.com I trust the above is acceptable however if you require any further information regarding this matter please contact me on 0800 389 0379 or via the e-mail address below or at planningconsultations@scottishwater.co.uk. Yours sincerely, Pamela Strachan Development Operations Analyst Tel: 0800 389 0379 developmentoperations@scottishwater.co.uk Scottish Water Disclaimer: “It is important to note that the information on any such plan provided on Scottish Water’s infrastructure, is for indicative purposes only and its accuracy cannot be relied upon. When the exact location and the nature of the infrastructure on the plan is a material requirement then you should undertake an appropriate site investigation to confirm its actual position in the ground and to determine if it is suitable for its intended purpose. By using the plan you agree that Scottish Water will not be liable for any loss, damage or costs caused by relying upon it or from carrying out any such site investigation." 234
Page 235
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director Michael McGlynn Roads and Transportation Services – Transportation Engineering Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Email: enterprise.hq@southlanarkshire.gov.uk To: Planning and Economic Development Planning Application No: P/21/0909 Case Officer: Jim Blake From: Development Management Roads and Transportation Services Contact: Mark Wilkie Date: 17 June 2021 Subject: OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION P/21/0909 Location: 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre I refer to the above application for the sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two-storey dwellinghouse (Planning permission in principle). The general Impact of the development proposal is suitable at this location. Access would be taken onto Rosebank Avenue via an existing private access. There is adequate visibility of 2m x 43m onto Rosebank Avenue. For a 2 or 3-bed house, 2 off-street car parking spaces are required, For a 4 or more bed house, 3 off-street car parking spaces are required. These should be in modules of 3m x 6m. This service would wish to support this application, with a suitable condition about parking. Engineering Manager 5c 235
Page 236
236
Page 237
1 Arnott, Jacqueline From: Maddison, Louisa Sent: 22 June 2021 10:17 To: Blake, Jim; Planning Cc: Pilpel, Simon Subject: P/21/0909 Hi, Please find attached response to application: P/21/0909 | Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) | 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre G72 9BB As noted – the boundary of this application needs to be revised – according to the SLC ownership mapping the development boundary is impinging on SLC land and therefore the pLNR boundary. Map attached. Regards, Louisa Maddison Biodiversity Officer Countryside & Greenspace Service Facilities, Waste & Grounds Services Community & Enterprise Resources South Lanarkshire Council 18 Forrest Street Blantyre G72 0JP I work 8am-2.30pm (until 4.30pm on Tues) Tel: 07788 351 851 louisa.maddison@southlanarkshire.gov.uk www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk SLC Countryside Rangers South Lanarkshire Biodiversity Partnership www.NHSinform.scot/Covid-19 5c 237
Page 238
2 238
Page 239
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director Michael McGlynn Facilities, Waste and Grounds Services Consultation response To: Planning & Building Standards Service Our ref: Your ref: cc: Jim Blake Simon Pilpel If calling ask for: Louisa Maddison Phone: 01698 717797 From: Louisa Maddison Date: Wednesday, 30 June 2021 Subject: P/21/0909 | Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) | 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre G72 9BB I refer to the above planning application and have no objections subject to conditions; • The boundary of the application does not appear to match SLC ownership; this needs to be clarified before any works or approval begins. • The development is adjacent to a proposed Local Nature Reserve (which matches the SLC ownership; therefore the application boundary is currently within the pLNR). There should be no impact beyond the site boundary; all works including drainage should remain within the development site. Should you require any further information, please get in touch. Regards, Louisa Maddison Biodiversity Officer Community & Enterprise Resources 18 Forrest Street, Blantyre, G72 0JP Email: louisa.maddison@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Councils website: www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk 239
Page 240
P/21/0909 HM/06/0209 HM/00/0389 HM/99/0538 HM/99/0402 HM/01/0197 HM/14/0550 HM/00/0247 HM/01/0406 HM/02/0322 HM/99/0045 HM/07/0155 HM/11/0226 HM/06/0147 1:736© Crown Copyright and database right 2020. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020730. ± SLC Legal Title Legal Title Type ACQUISITION ACQUISITION LEASE DISPOSAL LEASED OUT SUPERIORITY 240
Page 241
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director Michael McGlynn Facilities, Waste and Grounds Services Consultation response To: Planning & Building Standards Service Our ref: Your ref: cc: Jim Blake Simon Pilpel If calling ask for: Louisa Maddison Phone: 01698 717797 From: Louisa Maddison Date: Wednesday, 30 June 2021 Subject: P/21/0909 | Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) | 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre G72 9BB I refer to the above planning application and have no objections subject to conditions; • The boundary of the application does not appear to match SLC ownership; this needs to be clarified before any works or approval begins. • The development is adjacent to a proposed Local Nature Reserve (which matches the SLC ownership; therefore the application boundary is currently within the pLNR). There should be no impact beyond the site boundary; all works including drainage should remain within the development site. Should you require any further information, please get in touch. Regards, Louisa Maddison Biodiversity Officer Community & Enterprise Resources 18 Forrest Street, Blantyre, G72 0JP Email: louisa.maddison@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Councils website: www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk 5c 241
Page 242
242
Page 243
Community & Enterprise Resources Executive Director Michael McGlynn Fleet and Environmental Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: 08457 406080 Minicom: 01698 454039 Email: brian.sim@southlanarkshire.gcsx.gov.uk To: Planning & Building Standards Services Our Ref. BXS/443507 Your Ref. P/21/0909 If Calling Ask for Brian Sim CC: Jim Blake Phone From: Brian Sim Date. 28 July 2021 Subject: Application Ref: P/21/0909 Address: 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre Glasgow G72 9BB Proposed Development: Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for two storey I refer to the above planning application consultation and would comment as follows; We have no objections to the proposal. Brian Sim Environmental Health Officer 5c 243
Page 244
244
Page 245
Representations Representation From Dated Jacqueline Donnelly, by email 30/06/21 Appendix 2(c) 5d 245
Page 246
246
Page 247
1 Arnott, Jacqueline From: James O'Donnelly Sent: 30 June 2021 15:04 To: Planning Subject: Planning Objection P/21/0909 Sir/Madam, I am writing to object to a planning application for the property of 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre. We live at 27 Rosebank Avenue and our objections are on the following grounds: - The post code of the property on the notification notice does not correspond with the property or the surrounding area. - The ground that is being proposed for building is raised land against a large wall joined with our property. This is a single brick wall, not designed for building to take place on the said property. We are concerned the wall will collapse if work is carried out or heavy vehicles operate on the property. - We believe our privacy will be impinged upon if a property is built on this land. - The property sits on a Private Road maintained by residents. Building work would result in wear/tear and damage to road. - Possible problems with sewage and drainage access. Old system serving the old houses in full street is currently the only access available. Regards Jacqueline O'Donnelly 5d 247
Page 248
248
Page 249
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 5e 249
Page 250
250
Page 251
Photo 1 5e 251
Page 252
Photo 2 252
Page 253
Photo 3 253
Page 254
254
Page 255
Photo 1 5e 255
Page 256
256
Page 257
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 5f 257
Page 258
258
Page 259
Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Email jim.blake@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 01698 453657 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services Paul Hughes Blue Square 272 Bath Street Glasgow G2 4JR Our Ref: P/21/0909 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Jim Blake Date: 5 July 2022 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) Site address: 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G72 9BB Application no: P/21/0909 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 www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk 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 Jim Blake on 01698 453657 The Planning Service is undertaking a Customer Satisfaction Survey in order to obtain feedback about how we can best improve our Service to reflect the needs of our customers. The link to the survey can be found here: If you were the applicant: http://tinyurl.com/nrtgmy6 If you were the agent: http://tinyurl.com/od26p6g We would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to answer the questions in the survey based on your experience of dealing with the Planning Service in the past 12 months. We value your opinion and your comments will help us to enhance areas where we are performing well, but will also show us where there are areas of the service that need to be improved. 5f 259
Page 260
I do hope you can take part in this Customer Survey and look forward to receiving your comments in the near future. If you prefer to complete a paper version of the survey, please contact us by telephone on 0303 123 1015, selecting option 7, quoting the application number. We will send you a copy of the survey and a pre-paid envelope to return it. Yours faithfully Head of Planning and Economic Development Enc: 260
Page 261
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To : Mr Eddie MacNeil Per : Paul Hughes 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G71 7SS, Blue Square, 272 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR, With reference to your application received on 14.05.2021 for planning permission in principle under the above mentioned Act : Description of proposed development: Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permisson in Principle) Site location: 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G72 9BB South Lanarkshire Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE 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 July 2022 Head of Planning and Economic Development This permission does not grant any consent for the development that may be required under other Legislation, e.g. Planning Permission, Building Warrant or Roads Construction Consent. South Lanarkshire Council Community and Enterprise Resources Planning and Economic Development Application no. P/21/0909 261
Page 262
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission in principle Paper apart - Application number: P/21/0909 Reason(s) for refusal: 01. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house would not be in keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. Reason(s) for decision The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house would not be in keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. 262
Page 263
Notes to applicant Application number: P/21/0909 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. 01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: Reference Version No: Plan Status 2101(EX)001 Refused 2101(EX)100 Refused 2101(00)100 Refused 263
Page 264
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. 264
Page 265
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant E MacNeil Appendix 5 5g 265
Page 266
266
Page 267
Page 1 of 5 Montrose House 154 Montrose Crescent Hamilton ML3 6LB 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 100591415-001 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 GlenEtiveProjects Paul hughes Mitchell St 90 Gordons Chamber G1 3NQ United Kingdom Glasgow 1 5g 267
Page 268
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 17 ROSEBANK AVENUE eddie South Lanarkshire Council Macneil BLANTYRE Rosebank 17 GLASGOW G72 9BB G72 9BB scotland 658029 Blantyre 269406 268
Page 269
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) The proposal is to create a second plot within the garden ground and dedicated access to the plot. The historic nature of Blantyre has resulted a fragmented organic urban. There are various plots which have been granted in rear gardens and back land style of plots . We believe this is under utilised ground and suitable for a plot and dedicates access. 269
Page 270
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. Design and Access Statement. Precedent of sub divsion of plots P/21/0909 05/07/2022 14/05/2021 270
Page 271
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 Paul Hughes Declaration Date: 25/08/2022 271
Page 272
Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_BlantyreData from: Wikipedia Blantyre, South Lanarkshire Population: 16,900 (2016) Image courtesy of Ordnance SurveyImage courtesy of Ordnance Survey 272
Page 273
Introduction This Design & Access Statement has been produced to accompany the application for Outline Planning Consent for the subdivision of garden ground of 17 Rosebank Avenue Blantyre to create a new 2 storey dwelling with a separate double garage to the rear of the existing bungalow. The application seeks to establish whether the scale and nature of the proposal would be acceptable to South Lanarkshire Council prior to the submission of a fully detailed proposal. This Design & Access Statement has been prepared by Glen Etive Projects and HAYME Architecture and Design and will review both planning and design issues in support of this application. The adjacent location plan shows the land holding in blue and the application site in red. Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_Blantyre 35 14 15 ROSEBANK AVENUE 11 11a 10 28 20 12 24 Path 17 25 29 27 31 33 Location Plan - not to scale 273
Page 274
The Site Rosebank Avenue is in Blantyre, South Lanarkshire and sits in close proximity to Blantyre Train Station. Rosebank Avenue is an ‘L’ shaped cul-de-sac lined with a mix of property types including traditional 2 storey sandstone villas, new build bungalows and terraced homes (accessible from Toward Court an inner facing courtyard development behind original houses) and modern brick faced flatted blocks. The areas proximity to the railway means it has seen several phases of redevelopment resulting in the street and surrounding area becoming a patchwork of styles, materials and heights. The application site is part of the plot owned by no. 17 Rosebank Avenue which sits at the elbow of the road. The site is occupied by a 1970’s bungalow, a lightweight garage to the street and a storage shed to the rear. The overall plot is 1,746 m2 / 0.43 acres with the application site 1,212 m2 / 0.29 acres. The proposed new plot is situated to the rear of the existing house where the land sits approximately 1.5m below the existing road level. The proposed plot would benefit from direct dedicated access from Rosebank Avenue improving upon existing access arrangements. Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_Blantyre View from Rosebank Avenue of no.17 & access to plot View across site from access to side of no.17 View of rear facade and existing terraced garden space of no.17 View from bottom of slope looking back to Rosebank Avenue View across site towards boundary wall with no. 25/27 garden View of northern edge of site and access arrival point 274
Page 275
Site Analysis Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_Blantyre Urban Grain In compliance with the SG3 policy DM3 ‘Subdivision of Garden Ground’, the proposed house is of a scale and massing sympathetic to the character and pattern of development in the area and does not result in a development that appears cramped, visually obtrusive or be of an appearance which is so out of keeping with the established character that it is harmful to the amenity of the area. Urban Grain As Existing Urban Grain As Proposed Overshading & Amenity In compliance with the SG3 policy DM3 ‘Subdivision of Garden Ground’, the proposed development will not overshadow adjacent properties or result in the signification loss of amenity or itself be significantly adversely affected by over shadowing. The garden space allocated to the proposed house and remaining for the existing house is sufficient for the recreational, amenity and drying needs of the occupants. Access, Movement & Use The proposed vehicular access is of an adequate standard and will not have adverse implications for the traffic safety or adversely affect the amenity of adjacent properties by virtue of noise or loss of privacy. The existing parking arrangements to the front of no.17 will be retained, the existing garage replaced and the new dedicated garage & parking area for the new dwelling will create a bufferzone between the 2 plots. Boundaries & Edges Existing features such as trees, hedges, walls, fences and buildings that contribute to the character of the area will be retained and enhanced by the proposal. . A landscaped bufferzone will be established between the 2 plots and the edge to the north defined with planting and fencing. The trees which bound the eastern edge along the existing pedestrian footpath will be retained and the fence along this edge upgraded. AMPM Indicative Midday Shadow As Existing AMPM Indicative Midday Shadow with Proposal Access & Parking as Existing Access & Parking as Proposed 275
Page 276
Proposed Site Plan The adjacent plan illustrates the proposed subdivision of the plot (outline in blue) and the relationship between the existing dwelling and the proposed house. The existing house will retain the area hatched in yellow with the access from Rosebank Avenue and the refuse and recycling area, the access ramp and the area of structured planting shared by both plots. The remained of the site would be given to the new development. The existing garage which fronts to Rosebank Avenue will be removed to allow for a shared hard surfaced refuse and recycling collection point within easy access to the road for collection. This area will be enclosed with a brick wall which will offer the opportunity for signage for the new house. The occupiers of the new house will require to take their bins to this area for collection from their dedicated storage located adjacent to their parking area. A new double garage for no. 17 will be located adjacent to the refuse collection point. The existing front garden / parking area to no.17 will remain as existing. A new double garage and dedicated parking area with a planted buffer zone will create a defined edge between the 2 plots. The existing access strip from Rosebank Avenue will be upgraded to create a dedicated access to the new plot. The area to the north will be cleared and planted to structure this edge with new fencing to the proposed garden boundary. The existing brick wall to the neighbouring property (25/27) will be retained and repaired where necessary. The new dwelling sits 21m from the existing house which complies with the minimal window to window distances of 20m. Although not detailed it is imagined that the principal rooms will have their main aspect to the north/ east and south to minimise overlooking further. Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_Blantyre 17 2527 refuse & recycling collection point 11m garden new double garage proposed new dwelling replacement double garage for no.17 structured planting to edge permeable paving to entrance courtyard south easterly facing private garden 1:10 gradient ramp ~1.5m level change 21m between properties bin store A existing boundary wall retained new boundary fencing defined garden for no.17 Proposed Site Plan - not to scale 276
Page 277
Site Section - Massing & Scale The adjacent sections seek to present the proposed massing and proposed scale of the new house on the plot behind no.17. The existing dwelling is a simple 1970’s style bungalow, which is unusual to this side of the street which is defined by traditional 2.5 storey stone townhouses. It is proposed that the new dwelling will be 2 storeys with a pitched roof orientated in the same direction as the existing house. The change in level allows for a 2 storey house to sit comfortably in this context. Although the new dwelling will not have direct frontage to the street the new access will be clearly defined and the dwelling will benefit from views over the Clyde and beyond to the East. The traditional villa located at the end of Rosebank Avenue is simarly positioned back from the street so their is precedent locally to support this arrangement. The existing raised terrace used by no.17 will be extended by 4.5m to create a level, generous 11m deep south easterly facing private garden. The new plot will benefit from a garden to 3 sides of the dwelling with the mature trees retained along the edge which slopes down to the public footpath. The new dwelling, associated planting and garage will improve the outlook from this terraced area which currently looks across overgrown waste land and the positioning of the new dwelling will not impact on sunlight nor privacy. Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_Blantyre Rosebank Avenue Rosebank Avenue existing garage refuse collection point new double garage no.17 single storey bungalow no.17 single storey bungalow existing front garden/parking existing terrace overgrown waste ground extended terrace garden for no.17 garage and planted bufferzone new 2 storey dwelling mature trees on slope path open views mature trees on slope pathsouth/easterly facing private garden 277
Page 278
Precedents of Subdivision of Garden Ground The surrounding area has precedents of many examples of successful subdivision of garden ground. Adjacent are 2 examples of recent applications for the sub-division of garden ground which are comparable to our proposals for the rear of 17 Rosebank Avenue. Conclusions The proposed sub-division of the garden ground and use for a new build dwelling comply with and meet the criteria in adopted Local Development Plan, relevant supplementary guidance and National Planning Guidance. Local Development 2 2020 (LDP) LDP Policy 5 Supplementary Guidance • SG3: Development Management and Placemaking and Design • Chapter 5 Subdivision of Garden Ground • SPG Residential Design Guide August 2011 The subdivision of the plot will have no negative impact on the existing property nor the neighbouring properties and will address what is currently vacant unused land. The proposal itself will create a family home within generous private gardens. Outline Planning Design & Access Statement 17 Rosebank Avenue_Blantyre P/19/0579 | Sub-division of garden to form three additional house plots (Planning permission in principle) | Silverwood House Blantyre Mill Road Bothwell G71 8DZ Policy South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (proposed) Policy 3 - General Urban Area/Settlements Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking Policy DM1 - New Development Design Policy DM3 - Sub-Division of Garden Ground Policy DM15 - Water Supply Policy DM16 - Foul Drainage and Sewerage Policy NHE18 – Walking, Cycling and Riding Routes Approved P/18/0405 | Subdivision of garden ground to form house plot (Planning permission in principle) | 107 Townhead Street Hamilton ML3 7BX Furthermore, any future development can be achieved without significant impact on the amenity or privacy of neighbouring properties. Approved 278
Page 279
279
Page 280
35 14 15 ROSEBANK AVENUE 11 11a 9 10 28 40 20 12 24 Path 17 25 29 27 31 33 title no: LAN189322 title no: LAN192072 title no: LAN22878 ownership boundary = 0.17 hectares application boundary = 0.12 hectares building to be demolished DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON DIMENSIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. OS MAP BASE - OS ©Crown Copyright and database rights 2021 OS Licence no. 100051661 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN METRIC. THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE COPYRIGHT OF HAYME Architecture Design Ltd. DRAWING NO. SCALE @ A3 DATE DRAWN BY TITLE STATUS REV CLIENT: NOTES: REV. REASON FOR ISSUE DATE PROJECT SCALE @ 1:1 OUTLINE PLANNING 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre Location Plan as Existing 2101(EX)001 1:500 30.04.21 SHAY A A BOUNDARY ADJUSTED / TITLE INFO ADDED 13.08.21 280
Page 281
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review Appendix 6 5h 281
Page 282
282
Page 283
Notice of Review – 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G72 9BB Statement of Observations Planning Appeal - Sub-Division of Garden Ground to Form House Plot for a Two- Storey Dwelling House (Planning Permission in Principle) (P/21/0909) 1 Planning background 1.1 Mr. Eddie MacNeil submitted a planning application (reference: P/21/0909) on 14 May 2021 to South Lanarkshire Council for the sub-division of garden ground to form a house plot for a two storey dwellinghouse (Planning Permission in Principle) at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre. After due consideration of the application in terms of the Development Plan and all other material planning considerations, planning application P/21/0909 was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 5 July 2022 for the reasons listed in the decision notice. 1.2 The report of handling dated 29 June 2022 explains in detail all material planning considerations and the reasons/justification for the decision. The reasons for refusal are listed in the decision notice. These documents are both available elsewhere within the papers. 2 Assessment against the development plan and other relevant policies 2.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires that an application for planning permission is determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 2.2 The development plan in this instance comprises the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) and its associated supplementary guidance. The provisions of the Clydeplan, the Strategic Development Plan, are not directly applicable given the nature and scale of the proposal (now appeal). The appeal site is located within a General Urban Area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. The proposal is affected by Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy, Policy 2 - Climate Change, Policy 3 - General Urban Areas and Settlements, Policy 5 - Development Management and Place Making, Policy DM1 - New Development Design and Policy DM3 - Subdivision of Garden Ground. 2.3 Whilst application P/21/0909 was for planning permission in principle, an indicative plan was submitted with the application showing the footprint of a detached dwellinghouse and a detached garage both located to the rear of the existing detached bungalow on the site. As part of the planning application process, consultations were undertaken and statutory neighbour notification was carried out. In addition, the application was advertised in the Hamilton 5h 283
Page 284
Advertiser under the heading Non-notification of Neighbours. As a result of the above publicity, one letter of representation was received by the Council. The Report of Handling concisely summarises the issues raised and provides an appropriate planning response. 3 Observations of applicants 'Notice of Review' 3.1 In the submitted ‘Notice of Review’ and associated supporting information the applicant has identified matters in support of their request for a review. The applicant’s statement of reasons for requesting a review of the application have been highlighted below and detailed comments from the Planning Service on each of these issues are below. 3.2 The historic nature of Blantyre has resulted in fragmented organic urban. This may be the case historically in some older parts of Blantyre and indeed perhaps historically throughout South Lanarkshire. However, in view of the legal requirement to determine and assess all planning applications in terms of the provisions of the development plan the most important aspect to take into consideration is the fact that the proposed development is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house would not be in keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. 3.3 The Design and Access Statement, which was submitted with the planning application and submitted again under this review, states that although the new dwelling will not have direct frontage to the street the new access will be clearly defined. It states that the traditional villa located at the end of Rosebank Avenue is similarly positioned back from the street so there is precedent locally to support this arrangement. In this regard, it is not accepted that the house referred to is similarly positioned back from the street. Whilst the house is set back slightly from the adjacent dwelling it is not “similarly set back” when compared to the position of the proposed house as is suggested. Furthermore, the traditional villa referred to also benefits from having a road frontage. Whilst it is accepted that this frontage is narrower than others in the street the dwelling was constructed a considerable time prior to South Lanarkshire Council’s planning policies being introduced and the property clearly has a road frontage unlike the proposal which is clearly “backland development”. 3.4 There are various plots which have been granted in rear gardens and back land style of plots. The Design and Access Statement submitted by the applicant makes reference to two planning applications that have been granted by the Council for new 284
Page 285
dwellings within the Blantyre and Uddingston areas: Applications P/18/0405 and P/19/0579. In terms of application P/18/0405 - Subdivision of garden ground to form house plot (Planning permission in principle) – 107 Townhead Street, Hamilton, it has been noted from the delegated report that it was considered that “the proposed house plots; and that of the remaining property, are considered sympathetic to the surrounding area which contains a varied mix. The proposed house plot will have a proper road frontage and allow an acceptable level of garden ground to serve both properties.” In relation to application P/19/0579 - Sub-division of garden to form three additional house plots (Planning permission in principle) Silverwood House, Blantyre Mill Road, Bothwell, the delegated report notes that it was considered that “The proposed house plots; and that of the remaining property, are considered sympathetic to the surrounding area which contains a varied mix. The proposed house plots will have road frontages similar in arrangement to existing properties within the immediate area and allow an acceptable level of garden ground to serve the properties.” 3.5 As noted in the Report of Handling, following the submission of planning application P/21/0909 the applicant was asked to provide additional justification for the proposal to demonstrate that the development conforms with the criteria listed in Policy DM3 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. In this regard, the additional information submitted by the applicant included references to five examples of new dwellings within the Blantyre and Uddingston areas. However, of the examples provided by the applicant no information is available from the Council’s records in relation to the applicant’s Example 1 located at Station Gate, Example 3 located at Stonefield Road and Example 5 located at Douglas Gardens. In terms of the applicant’s Example 2 located at Handibode Gardens (HM/15/0473), this involves the erection of 3 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom terraced dwellinghouses and ancillary works on a former bowling green on behalf of Clyde Valley Housing Association. Therefore, this planning application does not relate to the subdivision of garden ground for the development of a new house. With regard to the applicant’s Example 4 located at Hunthill Road (HM/10/0250) the pattern/character of development appears to be quite different to that of Rosebank Avenue. The delegated report for the application stated that “The position of neighbouring residential properties adjacent to and located in close proximity to the site is irregular and generally do not follow an established ‘street pattern’ of development. Subsequently, whilst it is noted that the proposed development will not have a proper road frontage, many of the surrounding residential properties do not have a street frontage and therefore the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the established character of the area”. In addition, it is understood that the redevelopment of the site resulted in the removal of a non-conforming land use thereby resulting in an overall improvement to the amenity of the area. 285
Page 286
3.6 The above examples submitted were noted. However, they are not considered to be relative to the area surrounding the appeal site. Accordingly, the position of the proposed house, situated to the rear of the existing house, would not be in keeping with the established character and pattern of the immediate area. The proposed dwellinghouse would not provide an appropriate road frontage of comparable size reflective of surrounding curtilages, a pre-requisite of Policy DM3. Policy DM3 also requires that both the proposed and remaining plots are sympathetic to the character and pattern of development in the area and do not result in a development that appears cramped, visually obtrusive or be of an appearance that is harmful to the character and amenity of the area. In this regard, it is considered that the proposed dwellinghouse is a form of backland development which would generally be alien to the established character and pattern of development in the immediate area. In addition, concerns regarding the extent of garden ground proposed for the existing ‘donor’ house when compared to those nearby also remain. Whilst the references to the above applications are noted they have insufficient merit or weight to justify a departure from the development plan in this instance. I am satisfied that there are no material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the development plan and on this basis, it is considered that a departure from the development plan cannot be justified. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. The Local Development Plan 2 was adopted by the Council just prior to the application being submitted and it is considered that it would be an unsound and incorrect decision for the Council to grant an application which is fundamentally contrary to this Plan. 3.7 We believe this is under-utilised ground and suitable for a plot and dedicated access. Whilst the plot may be considered to be under-utilised (a deliberate decision of the landowner) the current constraints of the site are such that the proposal for the sub-division of the garden ground to form a house plot for a dwellinghouse as shown on the submitted drawings associated with application P/21/0909 is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed house would not be in keeping with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area and the proposed house would not have a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. 3.8 In addition to the above assessment it is worth highlighting from the Report of Handling that planning application P/20/1115 for the erection of a detached house at 45 Hunthill Road, Blantyre was refused by the Council under delegated powers on 27 January 2021, one of the reasons being that the proposal was contrary to Policy DM3 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 in that the proposed house, would not be in keeping within the established pattern of development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, 286
Page 287
the proposed house would not retain a proper road frontage of comparable size and form to surrounding curtilages. This decision was appealed by the applicant and following a review of the application, the Council’s Planning Local Review Body (PLRB) decided to uphold the decision taken in terms of the Scheme of Delegation. 4 Summary and Conclusions 4.1 As required by planning law, planning application P/21/0909 has been assessed in terms of the development plan and all other material considerations. In this respect the Report of Handling provides a detailed summary of all relevant considerations and a reasoned justification as to why the appeal proposal did not accord with Local Development Plan policy. 4.2 The proposed dwellinghouse would not provide an appropriate road frontage of comparable size reflective of surrounding curtilages, a pre-requisite of Policy DM3. Policy DM3 also requires that both the proposed and remaining plots are sympathetic to the character and pattern of development in the area and do not result in a development that appears cramped, visually obtrusive or be of an appearance that is harmful to the character and amenity of the area. In this regard, it must be emphasised that the proposed dwellinghouse is a form of backland development which would generally be alien to the established character and pattern of development in the immediate area. 4.3 It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the Planning Local Review Body support the decision to refuse consent and dismiss the applicant’s request to overturn the refusal of planning permission P/21/0909 based on the information contained in the report of handling and associated reasons for refusal. 287
Page 288
288
Page 289
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representations Submitted by an Interested Party in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 5i 289
Page 290
290
Page 291
Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/21/0909 Proposal: Sub-Division of Garden Ground to Form House Plot for a Two-Storey Dwelling House (Planning Permission in Principle) Location: 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre, G72 9BB Applicant: Mr E MacNeil 19/10/22 Further to the recent refusal decision at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre. We would to highlight the plots at Station Gate, which is less than 200m from the application site. The plot in question is very similar to context and nature. The settlement of Blantyre is historic in nature; dwellings, industry and commerce have all organically morphed and developed. With Rosebank being one of the original streets . The built form is not standard or conforming to new regulations within the LDP We believe that the plot helps utilise unused ground in terms of urban consolidation the seeks to reduce pressure on greenbelt development. 5i 291
Page 292
Picture -Station Gate 292