Agenda Document Pack - Planning Local Review Body - 20/02/2023
South Lanarkshire Council · 20 February 2023
Back to Planning Local Review Body — 20 February 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA Friday, 10 February 2023 Dear Councillor Planning Local Review Body The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:- Date: Monday, 20 February 2023 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 21 November 2022 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 3 - 8 Item(s) for Decision 3 Review of Case - P/22/0292 for Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston Report dated 10 February 2023 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 9 - 12 3a Appendix 1 Planning Application Form 13 - 20 3b Appendix 2(a) Report of Handling 21 - 30 3c Appendix 2(b) Consultation Responses 31 - 36 3d Appendix 2(c) Representations 37 - 108 3e Appendix 3 Site Photographs and Location Plan 109 - 116 3f Appendix 4 Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal 117 - 124 3g Appendix 5 Notice of Review 125 - 130 3h Appendix 6 Further Representation 131 - 162 3i Appendix 7 Applicant's Comments on Further Representations 163 - 166 3j Appendix 8 Further Representation on National Planning Framework 4 167 - 180 3k Appendix 9 Applicant's Comments on National Planning Framework 4 181 - 184 Urgent Business 4 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Stuart McLeod Clerk Telephone: 07385 370 117 Clerk Email: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 2
Page 3
PLANNING LOCAL REVIEW BODY (PLRB) Minutes of meeting held via Confero and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 21 November 2022 Chair: Councillor Richard Nelson Councillors Present Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Mark Horsham, Councillor Lesley McDonald, Councillor Norman Rae, Councillor Dr Ali Salamati, Councillor Graham Scott Councillors' Apologies: Councillor Mary Donnelly, Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller Attending Community and Enterprise Resources I Morton, Planning Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body Finance and Corporate Resources M Cannon, Legal Adviser to the Planning Local Review Body; M Gordon, Administration Assistant; S Jessup, Administration Assistant; S McLeod, Administration Officer 1 Declaration of Interests The following interest was declared:- Councillor(s) McDonald Item(s) Review of Case Application P/21/0909 – Sub-division of garden ground to form house plot for a 2 storey dwelling house (planning permission in principle) at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre Nature of Interest(s) Known to the applicant 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Local Review Body held on 10 October 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/20/0547 for Erection of a Boundary Fence and Associated Change of Use from Privately Owned Open Space to Private Garden Ground (Retrospective) at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride A report dated 8 November 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/20/0547 by M Creasey for the erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride. 2 3
Page 4
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 a response from a consultee site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submissions from interested parties following notification of the request for the review of the case The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The PLRB heard the Planning Adviser in relation to the case. The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested that further written submissions be sought, however, on the basis of the above, the PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application 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 2 – climate change Policy 3 – general urban areas and settlements Policy 5 – development management and placemaking Policy DM1 – new development design Following its review of the information and after discussion, the PLRB concluded that the proposal was in accordance with Policies 3, 5 and DM1 as it did not have a significant detrimental impact on visual amenity, as a result of its layout, scale and positioning, on the grounds that the fence was in keeping with other fences in the surrounding area. The PLRB then considered an appropriate condition to be attached to the planning consent. The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/20/0547 by M Creasey for the erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride be reversed and that planning permission be granted for the proposal subject to the condition specified by the PLRB, attached as an appendix to this minute. 4
Page 5
4 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 A report dated 8 November 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/21/1639 by L Marshall (formerly L Grattan) for the erection of an outbuilding within the rear curtilage of an end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) at 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with representations and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further 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 PLRB heard the Planning Adviser in relation to the case. The PLRB noted that the applicant had requested a hearing, site inspection and that further written submissions be sought, however, on the basis of the above, the PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application 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 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 Following its review of the information and after discussion, the PLRB concluded that the development was contrary to Policies 3, 5, DM1 and DM12 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 5
Page 6
The PLRB decided: that the decision taken by officers, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission for planning application P/21/1639 by L Marshall (formerly L Grattan) for the erection of an outbuilding within the rear curtilage of an end terrace house and an associated change of use from private recreational garden space to commercial hairdressing business (retrospective) at 5 Kenmar Terrace, Hamilton be upheld. 5 Review of Case – Application P/21/0909 for Sub-Division of Garden Ground to Form House Plot for a 2 Storey Dwelling House (Planning Permission in Principle) at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre A report dated 8 November 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/21/0909 by E MacNeil for the sub-division of garden ground to form a house plot for a 2 storey dwelling house (planning permission in principle) at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre. To assist the PLRB in its review, copies of the following information had been appended to the report:- planning application form report of handling by the planning officer under the Scheme of Delegation together with a representation and responses from consultees site photographs and location plan decision notice notice of review, including applicant’s statement of reasons for requiring the review further submission from an interested party following notification of the request for the review of the case comments from the applicant on the further submission received from an interested party The relevant drawings in relation to the review were available for inspection prior to the meeting of the PLRB. The PLRB heard the Planning Adviser in relation to the case. On the basis of the above, the PLRB considered it had sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review. The options available to the PLRB were to uphold, reverse or vary the decision taken in respect of the application taken under review. In reviewing the case, the PLRB considered:- the information submitted by all parties the relevant policies contained in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2:- Policy 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 – sub-division of garden ground Following its review of the information, the PLRB concluded that the development was contrary to Policy DM3 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. 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/21/0909 by E MacNeil for the sub-division of garden ground to form a house plot for a 2 storey dwelling house (planning permission in principle) at 17 Rosebank Avenue, Blantyre be upheld. Councillor McDonald, having declared an interest in the above review case, withdrew from the meeting during its consideration 6 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 7
Page 8
Application P/20/0547 - Condition and Reasons Appendix Erection of a boundary fence and associated change of use from privately owned open space to private garden ground (retrospective) at 74 Vancouver Drive, East Kilbride 01. That no part of the fence forward of the front building line shall exceed 1 metre in height with the remaining section of the fence to be maintained at a height of 1.8 metres. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control. 8
Page 9
Report Agenda Item Report to: Planning Local Review Body Date of Meeting: 20 February 2023 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Review of Case – Application P/22/0292 for Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston 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 Jamieson (formerly L Devers) Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Council Area/Ward: 16 Bothwell and Uddingston 1.3. Reason for Requesting Review X Refusal of Application Conditions imposed Failure to give decision (deemed refusal) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Planning Local Review Body is asked to:- [recs] (1) consider whether it has sufficient information to allow it to proceed to determine the review without further procedure and, if so, that:- (a) it proceeds to determine whether the decision taken in respect of the application under review should be upheld, reversed or varied (b) in the event that the decision is reversed or varied, the reasons and the detailed conditions to be attached to the decision letter are agreed (2) in the event that further procedure is required to allow it to determine the review, consider:- (a) what further information is required, which parties are to be asked to provide the information and the date by which this is to be provided (b) what procedure or combination of procedures are to be followed in determining the review [1recs] 3 9
Page 10
3. Background 3.1. The Council operates a Scheme of Delegation that enables Council officers to determine a range of planning applications without the need for them to be referred to Area Committees or the Planning Committee for a decision. 3.2. In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where an application for planning permission relates to a proposal that falls within the category of “local development” and has been or could have been determined under the Scheme of Delegation, the applicant is entitled to request that the determination be reviewed by the Planning Local Review Body. 4. Notice of Review – Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review 4.1. In submitting their Notice of Review, the applicant has stated their reasons for requiring a review of the determination in respect of their application. (Refer Appendix 5) 4.2. The applicant is entitled to state a preference for procedure (or combination of procedures) to be followed and has indicated that their stated preference is as follows:- Further written submissions 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) 5.3. Copies of the relevant drawings are available for inspection by contacting Administration and Legal Services prior to the meeting. 10
Page 11
6. Notice of Review Consultation Process 6.1. 14 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 submission attached as Appendix 7. 7. National Planning Framework 4 7.1. The Revised Draft National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was approved by the Scottish Parliament on 11 January 2023. At the time of writing this report, NPF4 was expected to be adopted and published by the Scottish Ministers on 13 February 2023, at which point it will form part of the statutory development plan. Given that the document had not been published and could not have been considered in the original decision relating to the application, all interested parties have since been given the opportunity to provide comment on the application in relation to NPF4. As a result, 4 further representations were received and these are listed at and attached as Appendix 8. 7.2 The applicant had the opportunity to comment on the further representations received in relation to NPF4. Comments from the applicant are contained in the submission attached as Appendix 9. Paul Manning Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 10 February 2023 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 454 815 / 07385 370 117) E-mail: stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 11
Page 12
12
Page 13
Planning Application Form Appendix 1 3a 13
Page 14
14
Page 15
3a 15
Page 16
16
Page 17
17
Page 18
18
Page 19
19
Page 20
20
Page 21
Report of Handling Report dated 29 June 2022 by the Council’s Authorised Officer under the Scheme of Delegation Appendix 2(a) 3b 21
Page 22
22
Page 23
Reference no. P/22/0292 Delegated Report Date 29 June 2022 Planning proposal: Erection of garden building for use as a beauty salon (in retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent Uddingston G71 7DQ Application Type : Householder Applicant : Mrs Laura Devers Location : 12 Kylepark Crescent Uddingston G71 7DQ Decision: Application refused Report by: HQ Manager (Planning & Building Standards) Policy reference: South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) SLDP2: Policy NHE6 Conservation Areas SLDP2: Policy 2 Climate change SLDP2: Policy 3 General Urban Areas SLDP2: Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Placemaking Supplementary Guidance 3: Development Management, Placemaking and Design Policy DM12 Working from home 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 Representation(s): ► 31 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 1 Comment letters Planning Application Delegated Report Consultations Summary of response 3b 23
Page 24
Roads Development Management Team Environmental Services The property is within a 30mph residential area, with street lighting and no restrictions. There are car parking spaces available within the driveway of the property. The general impact of development is suitable at this location. This service has no objections to this application. No comments regarding the proposals but request an advisory note is attached to any planning permission regarding formal action being taken if nuisance occurs Representation(s): ► 31 Objection letters ► 0 Support letters ► 1 Comment letters Planning Application Delegated Report 1 Application Summary 1.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning permission for the erection of an outbuilding in the rear curtilage of a domestic property for use as a commercial beauty salon business. The property is a semi detached house within an established residential area of Uddingston. The street is single width due to on street parking and is not a main thoroughfare for any other traffic other than local residents. The site is located in Kylepark which falls within the Uddingston conservation area. 1.2 The application is in retrospect and the outbuilding has been constructed using timber with patio doors at the front elevation. The salon use proposed is to operate on a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday from 9am to 6pm, however the application submission also states there will be times there are later finishes and it may also operate on a Sunday to Tuesday. 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 • SLDP2: Policy NHE6 Conservation Areas • SLDP2: Policy DM12 Working from Home 2.2 Planning History 24
Page 25
2.2.1 There is no relevant planning history for the site. 3 Consultations 3.1 Roads (Development Management Team) – The property is within a 30mph residential area, with street lighting and no restrictions. There are car parking spaces available within the driveway of the property. The general impact of development is suitable at this location. This service has no objections to this application. 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. 4 Representation(s) Following the statutory neighbour notification of the application, 31 letters of objection from separate parties have been received with the following concerns: 4.1 Increased traffic to the narrow road Response: These concerns are noted, however the consultation response from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team raises no objections to the proposals. 4.2 Issues with parking Response: These concerns are noted, however the consultation response from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team raises no objections to the proposals. 4.3 Shared Driveway with neighbour Response: These concerns are noted, however the consultation response from the Council’s Roads Development Management Team raises no objections to the proposals. 4.4 Detrimental impact on the nature and character of dwellings within the conservation area Response: These concerns are noted and will be addressed within the assessment and conclusion section below 4.5 Business plan suggests the possibility of working everyday Response: The application submission states working hours would be until 6pm with the possibility of later working, however this concern is addressed within the assessment and conclusion section below 4.6 Loss of privacy and disturbance Response: Noted. A detailed assessment of the proposals impact on the surrounding amenity, including privacy, of the area is contained in 5 below. 4.7 Drainage/Infrastructure Response: These are outwith the remit of the assessment of the planning application and would be a separate responsibility of the applicant. 4.8 Staff members 25
Page 26
Response: The applicant has stated that there will be one staff member, this will increase the rate of business. This will be assessed below. 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 beauty salon. 5.2 The application site is designated as being within a conservation area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 2021 (SLLDP2). As such, Policy NHE6 Conservation Areas advises developments within this area will be judged with greater planning controls, proposals shall comply with all relevant policy and guidance relating to the historic environment in order to protect the character of the area. 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 orientation of the windows, the distance they are from 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 beauty salon is considered not to be compatible within the surrounding residential area. They result in introducing visitors into a quiet narrow road, approximately 3 to 4 times a day, four days a week, including on a weekend. It is not a busy main road and 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, being that of a conservation area. The introduction of a significant amount of activity in proportion to a conservation area 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 26
Page 27
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 residential area 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 character of the Conservation area nor the amenity of surrounding neighbours per se, it’s use as a commercial beauty salon 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 DM11 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: Date: Previous references None List of background papers ► Application Form ► Application Plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (adopted 2021) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 13th April 2022 ► Consultations Roads Development Management Team 04.05.2022 Environmental Services 25.04.2022 ► Representations Joseph Tinney, Received Via Email, , , , Dated: 04.05.2022 Mrs Patricia Tinney, Received Via Email, , , , Dated: 04.05.2022 Charles E Patek, 8 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DQ Dated: 05.05.2022 27
Page 28
Mr Thomas Parke, 109 Kylepark Drive, Uddingston, Glasgow, G717DE, Dated: 10.05.2022 Andrew A Robertson, 1 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DQ Dated: 29.04.2022 Mr Peter Venables, 3 Kylepark crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, , Dated: 05.05.2022 Alicia Watt, Received Via Email, , , , Dated: 06.05.2022 Mrs Caroline McAlinden, 23 Greenrig, Uddingston, G71 7TD, , Dated: 02.05.2022 Mr David Kirkwood, 12 Kylepark Avenue,, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DG, Dated: 02.05.2022 Mr Kevin O'Hagan, 24 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, , Dated: 26.04.2022 Mr & Mrs Dean, By Email, , , , Dated: 05.05.2022 Elizabeth A Patek, 8 Kylepark Avenue, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DF Dated: 05.05.2022 Mrs Sylvia Taylor, 34 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, , Dated: 09.05.2022 Mr Jim Birch, 14 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, , Dated: 02.05.2022 Mr Douglas Cook, 15 Kylepark Avenue, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DG, Dated: 03.05.2022 Mrs Janette Clarkson, 36 Kylepark Crescent, Kylepark, Uddingston, G71 7 DQ, Dated: 03.05.2022 Mr J Tinney, Received Via Email, , , , Dated: 06.05.2022 Dr James Mckeown, Received Via Email, , , , Dated: 06.05.2022 Mrs Margaret McGruther, Received Via Email, , , , Dated: 04.05.2022 Hugh And Linda Falls, 6 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DQ Dated: 04.05.2022 Dr Charles. E Patek & Mrs Elizabeth A Patek, 8 Kylepark Avenue, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DF Dated: 05.05.2022 28
Page 29
Lesley, 30 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DQ Dated: 05.05.2022 Robina E Robertson, By Email, , , , Dated: 05.05.2022 Sr Eleaonor Breen Osf, Franciscan Convent, 90 Saracen Street, Glasgow, G22 5AD, Dated: 09.05.2022 Mary Mitchell, 32 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7DQ Dated: 28.04.2022 Mrs Karen Tinney, 2/2, 2 Cresswell Terrace, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7BZ, Dated: 30.04.2022 Mrs Sarah Breen, 10 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DQ, Dated: 01.05.2022 Mrs Shirley Mathieson, 20 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DQ, Dated: 03.05.2022 Dr Adrienne Jessop, 26 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DQ, Dated: 01.05.2022 Dr Miriam Birch, 14 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DQ, Dated: 28.04.2022 Mr Kenneth Mathieson, 20 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 7DQ, Dated: 03.05.2022 Mrs Ruby O'Hagan, 24 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, , Dated: 26.04.2022 Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Lauren Love, Planning officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 07385516159 Email: lauren.love@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 29
Page 30
Planning Application Application number: P/22/0292 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. 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, NHE6, 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 A Location Plan 2 Refused Block Plan 3 Refused Proposed Floor Plan 4 Refused Elevational Drawing 5 Refused 30
Page 31
Consultation Responses Response dated 20 April 2022 from Environmental Health Response dated 27 April 2022 from Roads and Transportation Services Appendix 2(b) 3c 31
Page 32
32
Page 33
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Fleet and Environmental Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 454792 Email: angelaj.sommerville@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Memo To: Planning and Building Standards Services Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton Our ref: AJS/463709 Your ref: P/22/0292 cc: If calling ask for: A Sommerville Phone: 01698 454792 From: A Sommerville Technical Officer Date: 20 April 2022 Subject: Planning Application No: P/22/0292 Address: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Proposed Development: Erection of Garden Building for use as a Beauty Salon (retrospective) 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: Environmental Protection: Noise 04. Between the hours of 0800 and 2000 the measured noise level emitted from the premises (LAeq (1hour)) shall not exceed the pre-existing background noise level (LA90 (1/2hour)) by more than 4dB (A) when measured in accordance with BS4142:1997 at buildings where people are likely to be affected. Between the hours of 2000 and 0800 the noise emitted from the premises (LAeq (5mins) ) shall not exceed the pre-existing background noise level (L A90 (1/2hour)) by more than 4dB(A) when measured in accordance with BS4142:1997 at buildings where people are likely to be affected. Noise 08 Hours of operation The use of the premises, including deliveries by commercial vehicles (with the exception of maintenance works not audible outside the premises), shall be restricted to the following hours of operation: 3c 33
Page 34
Mondays to Fridays: Between : 9am and 8pm Saturdays: Between : 9am and 8pm Sundays: Between : 9am and 8pm These times are intended to protect the amenity of the area and neighbouring noise sensitive properties. W1. Commercial Waste Control That before the development hereby approved is brought into use the approved details for storage and the collection of waste arising from the proposed development shall be in place thereafter be satisfactorily maintained all to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Commercial: If any treatments are offered which pierce the skin (such as microblading, electrolysis, acupuncture, ear or body piercing) the applicant requires to apply for a skin piercing licence from South Lanarkshire Council Licencing and Registration. An application can be made at the following link: Skin piercing and tattooing licence - South Lanarkshire Council I would also request that if the application is approved, then the following advisory notes should be attached to the decision notice for the applicant's information: 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 there under 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. Further details of this may be obtained from: South Lanarkshire Council, Environmental Services, Montrose House, Hamilton ML3 6LB ADV NOTE 4 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 & Enterprise Resources against the person responsible for any nuisance which may arise due to the operation of the proposed development. ADV NOTE 5 Smoking The applicant is advised that the provisions of the ‘Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005’ and the ‘Prohibition of Smoking in Certain Premises (Scotland) Regulations 2006’, apply to these premises. Should you require any further information, please contact A Sommerville, 01698 454792. A Sommerville Technical Officer 34
Page 35
Community and Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth 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/22/0292 Case Officer: Lauren Love From: Development Management Roads and Transportation Services Contact: Jill Davies Phone Ext: 5285 Date: 27th April 2022 Subject: OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION P/22/0292 Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent Uddingston G71 7DQ I refer to the application dated 12th April 2022, received in this office on 14th April 2022. The application is for the erection of a garden building, for use as a beauty salon. This application is retrospective. The property is within a 30mph residential area, with street lighting and no restrictions. There are car parking spaces available within the driveway of the property. The general Impact of development is suitable at this location. This service has no objections to this application. Engineering Manager 3c 35
Page 36
36
Page 37
Representations Representation From Dated Mary Mitchell, by email 23/04/22 Andrew Robertson, 1 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston 25/04/22 Ruby O’Hagan, by email 26/04/22 Kevin O’Hagan, by email 26/04/22 Dr Miriam Birch, by email 28/04/22 Hugh and Linda Falls, by email 28/04/22 Joseph Tinney, by email 28/04/22 Margaret McGruther, by email 28/04/22 Sister Eleanor Breen, Franciscan Convent, 90 Saracen Street, Glasgow 28/04/22 Patricia Tinney, by email 28/04/22 Charles E Patek, 8 Kylepark Avenue, Uddingston 29/04/22 Dr Charles and Mrs Elizabeth Patek, by email 29/04/22 Mrs Elizabeth A Patek, 8 Kylepark Avenue, Uddingston 29/04/22 J Tinney, 2/2, 2 Cresswell Terrace, Uddingston 29/04/22 Lesley Burren, by email 29/04/22 Mr and Mrs Dean, by email 29/04/22 Robina Robertson, by email 29/04/22 Karen Tinney, by email 30/04/22 Sylvia Taylor, 34 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston 30/04/22 Sarah Breen, by email 01/05/22 Dr Adrienne Jessop, by email 01/05/22 Alicia Watt, by email 02/05/22 Dr James McKeown, by email 02/05/22 David Kirkwood, by email 02/05/22 Jim Birch, by email 02/05/22 Caroline McAlinden, by email 02/05/22 Douglas Cook, by email 03/05/22 Kenneth Mathieson, by email 03/05/22 Janette Clarkson, by email 03/05/22 Shirley Mathieson, by email 03/05/22 Peter Venebles, by email 05/05/22 Thomas Parke, by email 10/05/22 Appendix 2(c) 3d 37
Page 38
38
Page 39
1 Arnott, Jacqueline From: Mary Mitchell Sent: 23 April 2022 13:42 To: Planning Subject: P/22/0292 Categories: JA working on Reference 12 Kylepark Crescent Uddingston G71 7DQ Lauren Love, Dear Ms Love, As a resident of Kylepark Cres. (32)I wish to register my objection to planning permission being granted for a Beauty Salon operation on this street. We live in a conservation area where the road can become pretty congested when there is extraordinary traffic.The lower part of the street is narrow with no pavement.At present residents have to drive with care,I fear that more volume of traffic would be a road safety issue. When more cars than normal are parked, bin lorries are unable to access our properties. Regularly we have bins outside on the road days after they should have been uplifted.I feel that we would be further inconvenienced if cars were parked outside this property. Mary Mitchell 32 Kylepark Cres Uddingston G71 7 DQ Sent from my iPad 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
3d 47
Page 48
48
Page 49
49
Page 50
50
Page 51
3d 51
Page 52
52
Page 53
3d 53
Page 54
54
Page 55
55
Page 56
56
Page 57
3d 57
Page 58
58
Page 59
3d 59
Page 60
60
Page 61
3d 61
Page 62
62
Page 63
3d 63
Page 64
64
Page 65
Law, Aileen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Charles Patek
29 April 2022 08:33
Love, Lauren; Planning
Darroch, Bernard; Finn, Tony
Subject: re: Planning Application Ref No P/22/0292 & Business Plan No 5183355
To: Ms Lauren Love, Planning Case Officer, Planning and Economic Development, South Lanarkshire Council,
Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB
Dear Ms Love,
We are aware that a retrospective South Lanarkshire Council Planning Application {Ref No P/22/0292 ) and Business
Plan {5183355) has been lodged, application validated 11th April 2022 , to construct and operate commercial
premises at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ. We object strongly to this proposed development of a
'beauty salon' for several reasons.
Firstly, Kylepark Crescent is located in part of a Designated Conservation Area in Uddingston and, therefore, should
not operate commercial premises open to the fee-paying general public. If the Business Plan were allowed it would
set a precedent and encourage other persons to apply to operate commercial premises from their house or back
garden in other parts of Kyle park and so greatly disturb the quiet family neighbourhood where we live. Further, in
the Business Plan {5183355) the hours of operation are so open-ended in that the 'beauty salon' premises could in
theory trade every day including Sundays and public holidays, and operate into the late evening if the proprietors so
wished. Further, the Business Plan gives no indication about staffing or how many paying customers can be
accommodated in the ' beauty salon' premises at any one time.
Secondly, Kyle park Crescent is an extremely narrow street and parking is a great problem even for residents, and
because it is so narrow most traffic destined for Kyle park Crescent opts to enter and exit via Kyle park Avenue where
we live. Indeed, refuse lorries and many delivery vans destined for Kylepark Crescent need to reverse into it from
Kylepark Avenue because the entrance/ exit at the west end of Kyle park Crescent that leads to and from Kylepark
Drive is virtually a single track road and has a 90 degree corner that is too tight for large vehicles to manoeuvre. As a
conservative estimate with just 10 clients a day the commercial premises at 12 Kylepark Crescent could attract a
steady stream of some additional 40-60 cars per week into Kylepark Avenue which is a quiet residential area with
small children. Therefore, Kylepark Crescent is definitely not suitable for a commercial business as most customers
would simply opt to park their cars in the adjoining Kylepark Avernue where we live and thereby exacerbate the
already very considerable traffic congestion that occurs in Kyle park Avenue every afternoon when parents park their
cars in order to uplift their children from Uddingston Grammar School. Indeed, there are instances when the east
end of Kylepark Avenue is blocked by parents 'double parking' because no kerbside parking spaces are available. The
situation is made worse by the fact that cars/ vans are now being parked in the 'turning area' at the west end of
Kylepark Avenue.
Finally, both Kyle park Crescent and Avenue are classified by South Lanarkshire Council as rural roads and, therefore,
because they are not considered to be main roads they are of low priority as regards snow clearance and are never
salted or gritted during the winter months by council vehicles. As well as problems for pedestrians and local traffic
there have been occasions when even refuse lorries can't operate in Kyle park Avenue or Crescent due to severe
road icing. Thus, these roads and pavements should not be used as through routes to a commercial business for the
general public.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
You rs sincerely,
Dr Charles. E Patek & Mrs Elizabeth A Patek
8 KyleparkAvenue Uddingston G71 7DF
1
3d
65Page 66
66
Page 67
3d 67
Page 68
68
Page 69
3d 69
Page 70
70
Page 71
3d 71
Page 72
72
Page 73
3d 73
Page 74
74
Page 75
3d 75
Page 76
76
Page 77
3d 77
Page 78
78
Page 79
3d 79
Page 80
80
Page 81
3d 81
Page 82
82
Page 83
3d 83
Page 84
84
Page 85
3d 85
Page 86
86
Page 87
3d 87
Page 88
88
Page 89
3d 89
Page 90
90
Page 91
3d 91
Page 92
92
Page 93
E. Safety, as well as amenity, concerns are a further objection. Many residents nearby are aware of the speed of some vehicles along Kylepark Avenue and Kylepark Crescent (usually by non residents). The location is a quiet, residential area where many young families reside and the corresponding risks from unwanted - and unwarranted - additional cars should be a material consideration in rejecting this proposed use. F. There would be encroachment onto third party owned property (without consent) should prospective customers seek to park cars in neighbouring driveways which are neither in partial nor exclusive ownership of the applicant and therefore over which the applicant has no right or authority to give commitments. G. To reiterate there is insufficient parking provision or a parking policy statement in support of the application. H. The scale of the development gives rise to (has created) overdevelopment in the context of the existing residential plot. In conjunction with the existing linked extension(s) within the same dwelling plot there is/would be an inappropriate, excessive and unsustainable site coverage, whether considered in isolation or in comparison with what has become acceptable and sustainable in the immediate locality. I. Should the scale and use of proposed development be permitted it would serve as an inappropriate and unsustainable precedent for future applications and proposals, placing further pressure on the character of the locality in contravention of the Conservation Area status. J. Whilst this is a planning application, reference should be made to apparent deficiencies in relation to Building Standards including whether the proposal is deficient in relation to the following: a. Distance from neighbouring properties/boundaries b. Use of suitable and compliant, fire retardant materials c. Compliance with general fire regulation (eg fire escapes) d. Compliant ventilation (whether natural or artificial) e. Compliant toilet provision for members of the public (notwithstanding the objection against Use Classes 1, 2 and 3 in the first instance) K. In summary the proposed appl ication (albeit in retrospect) is in total contravention of the Local Development Plan and conflicts with, and falls short of, a significant number of basic tenets of planning and development criteria for which it should be rejected forthwith. L. Had the development been brought to the attention of Planning Officers or the Planning Authority during construction it would have resulted in a Stop Notice or Planning Enforcement Notice. M. Should the building which is now erected be allowed to remain then a robust Enforcement Notice be served to address/redress the issues outlined above, otherwise the Planning Authority will have failed in its duties. 93
Page 94
94
Page 95
3d 95
Page 96
96
Page 97
3d 97
Page 98
98
Page 99
3d 99
Page 100
100
Page 101
3d 101
Page 102
102
Page 103
3d 103
Page 104
104
Page 105
3d 105
Page 106
106
Page 107
3d 107
Page 108
108
Page 109
Site photographs and location plan Appendix 3 3e 109
Page 110
110
Page 111
Photo 1 3e 111
Page 112
Photo 2 112
Page 113
Photo 3 113
Page 114
Photo 4 114
Page 115
Photo 1 115
Page 116
116
Page 117
Planning Decision Notice and Reasons for Refusal Appendix 4 3f 117
Page 118
118
Page 119
Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Email lauren.love@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Phone: 07385516159 Community And Enterprise Resources Executive Director David Booth Planning And Regulatory Services John Hynd 89 Cortmalaw Crescent Glasgow G33 1TD Our Ref: P/22/0292 Your Ref: If calling ask for: Lauren Love Date: 7 July 2022 Dear Sir/Madam Proposal: Erection of garden building for use as a beauty salon (in retrospect) Site address: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, Application no: P/22/0292 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 Lauren Love on 07385516159 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. 3f 119
Page 120
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: 120
Page 121
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 To: Mrs Laura Devers Per: John Hynd 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, 89 Cortmalaw Crescent , Glasgow , G33 1TD, With reference to your application received on 28.02.2022 for planning permission under the above mentioned Act: Description of proposed development: Erection of garden building for use as a beauty salon (in retrospect) Site location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ, SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act hereby: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the above development in accordance with the plan(s) specified in this decision notice and the particulars given in the application, for the reason(s) listed overleaf in the paper apart. Date: 7th 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. Building Warrant or Roads Construction Consent. South Lanarkshire Council Community and Enterprise Resources Planning and Economic Development Application no. P/22/0292 121
Page 122
South Lanarkshire Council Refuse planning permission Paper apart - Application number: P/22/0292 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. 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). 122
Page 123
Notes to applicant Application number: P/22/0292 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 A Location Plan 2 Refused Block Plan 3 Refused Proposed Floor Plan 4 Refused Elevational Drawing 5 Refused 123
Page 124
124
Page 125
Notice of Review (including Statement of Reasons for Requiring the Review) submitted by applicant L Jamieson (formerly L Devers) Appendix 5 3g 125
Page 126
126
Page 127
3g 127
Page 128
128
Page 129
129
Page 130
130
Page 131
Further Representation Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on Applicant’s Notice of Review D Cook by email J Parke by email A Robertson by email S Breen by email H and L Falls by email Dr Jessop by email Dr and Mrs Patek by email K Mathieson by email M Mitchell by email J Birch by email R Robertson by email J Tinney by email P Tinney by email Appendix 6 3h 131
Page 132
132
Page 133
STATEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS Planning Application No. P/22/0292 Erection of garden building for use as a beauty salon (in retrospect) 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ 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 use as a commercial beauty salon 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 1st July 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 a semi-detached house within an established residential area of Uddingston. The street is single width due to on street parking and is not a main thoroughfare for any other traffic other than local residents. The site is located in Kylepark which falls within the Uddingston conservation area. 1.3 The planning application received 31 letters of objection with the concerns raised outlined within the Report of Handling. 1 letter of support was also received. 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 • Policy NHE6: Conservation Areas 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 3h 133
Page 134
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 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 The application site is located within a Conservation Area. As such, Policy NHE6 Conservation Areas advises developments within this area will be judged with greater planning controls, proposals shall comply with all relevant policy and guidance relating to the historic environment in order to protect the character of the area. 2.8 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 and generally with the surrounding area. The outbuilding is considered of a scale that is suitable within the rear garden of a property of this nature. The materials used are again in keeping. The orientation of the windows, the distance they are from any neighbouring property and that the outbuilding is not elevated ensures that the design of the outbuilding does not create any level of significant overlooking within the surrounding area. The location of the building at the rear of the property and its design also results in it not having a significantly detrimental impact upon the character of the Conservation Area. 2.9 It was 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 beauty salon was considered not to be compatible within the surrounding residential area. This use results in introducing visitors into a quiet narrow road, approximately 3 to 4 times a day, four days a week, including on a weekend. It is not a busy main road and 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 of activity in proportion to a 134
Page 135
residential area of this nature is not considered to be of a scale that is acceptable on the character of the area. 2.10 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, its 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). 2.11 It should also be clarified that, 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. 3 Observations on Applicants Notice of Review 3.1 The applicants have submitted a statement to support their review. The grounds are summarised below: (a) The main use of the property remains as a dwelling Response: The proposals involve a bespoke outbuilding erected for use as a beauty salon which is separate from the dwellinghouse. (b) One small room, measuring approximately 2.5 meters x 4 meters Response: As noted above, the outbuilding has been erected for use as a beauty salon. The design and scale of the building is considered acceptable in a domestic setting but not for commercial use. (c) There are no non-residents employed on the premises Response: Noted. This was not an area of concern as part of the planning assessment. (d) No activities associated with business will have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area. Response: As set out within the Report of Handling, it was considered that there was a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area. It is noted that the planning application received 31 letters of objection with amenity being raised as a concern. (e) No retailing will be taking place from the property Response: Noted. This was not an area of concern as part of the planning assessment. (f) There will be no deliveries to the premise Response: Noted. This was not an area of concern as part of the planning assessment. 135
Page 136
(g) There is no external storage at the premises Response: Noted. This was not an area of concern as part of the planning assessment. (h) There is no noise, smells or dirt generated by the business or public visiting Response: As set out within the report of handling, the level of activity associated with the arrival and departure of customers was considered to be inappropriate for a residential area. (i) There will be no impact on traffic and public safety/ Ample car parking in our driveway Response: As noted in the Report of Handling road safety and traffic were not raised as a concern outwith the introduction of additional vehicles within a residential area. (j) There will be no activities taking place outside normal working areas and weekends Response: As set out within the report of handling, the level of activity associated with the arrival and departure of customers was considered to be inappropriate for a residential area. (k) There is no storage of materials/ vehicles on site Response: Noted. This was not an area of concern as part of the planning assessment. 4 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. 136
Page 137
From: Douglas Cook Sent: 27 October 2022 16:44 To: McLeod, Karen <Karen.McLeod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk>; McLeod, Stuart <Stuart.McLeod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body ‐ 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ Thank you for your email. I re‐state my reasons for objecting to this application. I hope you will once again reject the application. Yours faithfully Douglas Cook 3h 137
Page 138
138
Page 139
From: Jim Parke Sent: 28 October 2022 14:29 To: McLeod, Karen <Karen.McLeod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ Dear Mrs McLeod In connection with the above Planning Review Body I can confirm that I consider the observations that I submitted in relation to the proposed development remain valid T J Parke Sent from my iPhone On 25 Oct 2022, at 09:03, McLeod, Karen <Karen.McLeod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> wrote: Dear Mr Parke Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/22/0292 Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Applicant: Miss Laura Jamieson (formerly Mrs Laura Devers) I have to advise you, as an interested party in terms of your consultation response/representation on the above planning application, that the applicant has requested a review of the decision taken to refuse planning permission for the above application. Please note that your previous representation/consultation response will be considered by the Planning Local Review Body (PLRB) when it determines the review. If you have anything further to add to your previous representation which you wish the PLRB to consider, you must submit this to the PLRB by 8 November 2022. You can do this by contacting me at stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk. Please note that any representations received after the specified date will not be considered by the PLRB. You should note that the PLRB is required to pass these further representations to the applicant for comments. Any further representations received, together with the applicant’s comments on those further representations, will be included in the papers for the PLRB meeting at which this review will be considered. The agenda and papers for the meeting of the PLRB at which this review case will be considered will normally be available on the Council’s website 5 clear working days prior to the date of the meeting and I will advise you of the meeting date in due course. A copy of the Notice of Review and any related documents or representations will be available for inspection by contacting me on 01698 454815 or at stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk. You should note that Section 43B of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 restricts the introduction of new material in the review proceedings which was not before the appointed person at the time that the application was determined. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of the review process, please contact me at telephone number 01698 454815. Yours sincerely Stuart McLeod Administration Officer www.NHSinform.scot/Covid-19 3h 139
Page 140
140
Page 141
From: To: Subject: Date: Sandy Robertson McLeod, Stuart Planning Application No. P/22/0292 30 October 2022 16:22:33 Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/22/0292 Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Applicant: Miss Laura Jamieson (formerly Mrs Laura Devers) Dear Sir: I refer to your email of 25th October regarding the request for review of the decision to refuse Planning Consent for the proposed development at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, and to my letter to the Planning Director dated 25th April, 2022. I now write to confirm my continued opposition to this most inappropriate and unwelcome proposal for the construction of a beauty salon, for use as a commercial enterprise at that address. My views on the matter are unchanged, and I wish you to record my continued objection to the proposal as submitted. Kylepark is a quiet residential and conservation area, and such a commercial enterprise as described in this application is entirely inappropriate and will adversely affect the amenity of the local residents. I therefore continue to object to the proposal. Please record this objection in the consideration of the review of the previous decision. Yours faithfully, Andrew A Robertson 1 Kylepark Crescent Uddingston G71 7DQ Sent from Mail for Windows 3h 141
Page 142
142
Page 143
From: To: Sarah Breen McLeod, Stuart Subject: Review of Planning application P/22/0292 Date: 31 October 2022 12:29:01 Dear Mr McLeod, Thank you for informing me of the request for Review of the decision to refuse the above application in respect of 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ. Whilst I have nothing further to add to my previous objections I wish it to be noted that these objections still stand . Yours sincerely, Mrs Sarah Breen, 10 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ 3h 143
Page 144
144
Page 145
1 McLeod, Karen From: Hugh Falls Sent: 31 October 2022 14:51 To: McLeod, Karen Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ Dear Karen McLeod, Thank you for your email. We wish to reaffirm our objections to this proposal. Yours sincerely, Hugh and Linda Falls 3h 145
Page 146
146
Page 147
1 McLeod, Karen From: Adrienne Jessop Sent: 01 November 2022 00:09 To: McLeod, Karen Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ Dear Ms McLeod Thank you for the notification. My objections to the application still stand. Yours sincerely Adrienne Jessop 3h 147
Page 148
148
Page 149
From: To: Charles Patek McLeod, Stuart Subject: Planning application No P/22/0292 Date: 04 November 2022 08:04:09 . Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ Dear Mr McLeod, We received your email dated 25th October 2022 sent at 09.04hrs concerning the review / appeal recently submitted by Miss / Mrs Laura Jamieson / Devers (see footnote No 1) regarding retrospective planning permission to erect a garden building for use as a Beauty salon at a private residence, namely 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston. Because the Planning Department contacted us about this review we feel obliged to reply. We have previously voiced our strong objection to this development in the Conservation Area where we live - see our email sent to Ms Lauren Love, Planning Case Officer, Montrose House, Hamilton on 29th April 2022 at 08.33hrs. On the 1st July 2022 the Planning Department of South Lanarkshire Council refused permission for a Beauty salon to operate at 12 Kylepark Crescent. The review sought by the applicant (see Policy DM12 and Statement of reasons for seeking review) fails to address or even recognise fully what an imposition a commercial business will have when located in a private dwelling and in a designated Conservation Area. The daily influx of multiples of complete strangers on days and times dictated, regulated and overseen solely by the proprietor herself will cause untold disruption to this quiet residential neighbourhood. Surely the applicant at 12 Kylepark Crescent must know that the operation of a commercial business in a private dwelling in a designated Conservation Area that is open to the walk-in, fee-paying general public is contrary to South Lanarkshire local Council policy / regulations (see footnote No 2). Moreover, surely the applicant must know that the Council regulations stipulate very clearly that planning permission must be sought before a new building can be erected in an established Conservation Area. I trust the South Lanarkshire Council Planning Department will abide by their own regulations and, again, refuse permission for the proposed business plan. Likewise, I trust a refusal will equally apply to any other applicant who attempts to develop a commercial business that is open to the general public in The Kylepark Conservation Area. Yours sincerely, Dr Charles E Patek & Mrs Elizabeth A Patek 8 Kylepark Avenue, Uddingston G71 7 DF Footnote No 1: Declare Notice of Review - Declaration date 5th October 2022 Declare - Post Submission Additional Documentation - Declaration date 7th October 2022 Footnote No 2: see Article 4 Direction, Local Development Plan LDP2 and The Scottish Planning Policy paragraphs Nos 29 & 108 as previously cited and outlined in detail by Mr Joseph Tinney of 10 Kylepark Crescent in his email sent to the South Lanarkshire Council Planning Department on 28th April 2022 at 19.51hrs. Sent from my iPad 3h 149
Page 150
150
Page 151
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Ken Mathieson McLeod, Karen Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ 05 November 2022 16:46:57 image003.png Dear Madam, The comments and objections in my previous submission of 3rd May still apply and, in addition, I ask whether a planning application to build a shop in the middle of a historic residential conservation area in which no shop had previously existed would be approved? I see no difference between a nail bar and any other kind of shop in such circumstances. Yours faithfully, KW Mathieson 3h 151
Page 152
152
Page 153
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Mary Mitchell McLeod, Karen Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston G71 7DQ 06 November 2022 14:23:30 image003.png I wish my objection to the retrospective planning appeal to remain as before. Mary Mitchell 32 Kylepark Cres.,Uddingston G71 7DQ Sent from my iPad 3h 153
Page 154
154
Page 155
From: To: Subject: Date: Jim Birch McLeod, Stuart Re below 07 November 2022 19:26:22 Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/22/0292 Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Applicant: Miss Laura Jamieson (formerly Mrs Laura Devers) I refer to Karen McLeod’s email of the 22.10.22, in respect of the above review of the Planning Application No P/22/0292. Retrospective. I would take this opportunity to state that I still fully support my original objection to Planning Application P/22/0292, from a technical and environmental view. The reason for Planning Application P/22/0292, being rejected was that “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). I believe, no circumstances have changed to revoke the refused application. I believe that the revised application also has a slightly different business model, stating the business hours and maximum potential of clients. How can this be monitored to ensure that these constraints are adhered too ? they simply cannot be monitored by outside interested parties. I believe that granting of this application, will set a precedent, which will impact on the community adversely in the future. 3h 155
Page 156
156
Page 157
From: To: Subject: Date: Robina Robertson McLeod, Stuart Proposed Beauty Salon at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston 07 November 2022 12:18:34 Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/22/0292 Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Applicant: Miss Laura Jamieson (formerly Mrs Laura Devers) Dear Sir: I refer to your email of 25th October 2022 referring to the above proposal, and to my letter of objection sent previously. My opinion on this matter has not changed, and I continue to object to the proposal. However I wish to emphasise that Kylepark Crescent is located within a Residential Area and Conservation Area. I also wish to draw your attention to the fact that more than half of Kylepark Crescent is a single track road with no pavement, requiring pedestrians to walk along the roadway. Any additional traffic resulting from the proposal will increase the level of danger to all pedestrians, especially children and the elderly. Should this proposal be approved, this would encourage other similar proposals within this quiet residential area. I therefore wish to confirm my objection the above proposal. Yours faithfully Robina E Robertson 1 Kylepark Crescent Uddingston G71 7DQ Sent from Mail for Windows 3h 157
Page 158
158
Page 159
From: To: Subject: Date: Joseph Tinney McLeod, Stuart Planning review re application P/22/0292 12 Kylepark Crescent,Uddingston, G71 7DQ 07 November 2022 10:00:06 Dear Mr Mcleod, Further to your e mail of 25/10/2022 informing me of the request by the applicant to review the decision to refuse permission to run a Beauty Business at the above address which shares a driveway with our home at No. 10 I wish to reaffirm my strong objections as laid out in my letter to the Council dated 27/04/ 2022. In the letter received from the Council dated 1st July 2022 it stated the reason for the decision to refuse as follows: "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)." In my opinion this remains the situation as the proposed use of the building as a commercial business operating as a Beauty Salon or Room is not appropriate in this location of a well established Conservation area and therefore the decision to refuse should stand . Finally I note the new proposals submitted in the additional documentation provided would indicate the applicant is seeking to make additional amendments to her original application without giving proper notice of that and without proper planning and neighbour scrutiny.Surely this is not acceptable ? I urge the Planning Review Board to uphold the original decision based on existing Council Policies and maintain Kylepark as a treasured Conservation area without the introduction of commercial activity. I would be obliged if you could acknowledge receipt of this e mail Joseph Tinney 3h 159
Page 160
160
Page 161
From: To: Patricia Tinney McLeod, Stuart Subject: Planning Review of Application no P/22/0292 for Property at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Date: 07 November 2022 09:45:11 Dear Mr Mcleod, Further to your e mail of 25/10/2022 informing me of the request by the applicant to review the decision to refuse permission to run a Beauty Business at the above address, which shares a driveway with our home at No. 10, I wish to reaffirm my objections as laid out in my letter to the Council dated 28/04 2022. In the letter received from the Council dated 1st July 2022 it stated the reason for the decision to refuse as follows: "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)." In my opinion this is still the situation and the proposed use of the building as a Beauty Salon or Room is not appropriate in this location of a Conservation area. Yours sincerely, Patricia Tinney 3h 161
Page 162
162
Page 163
Applicant’s Comments on Further Representations Submitted by Interested Parties in the Course of the Notice of Review Consultation Process Appendix 7 3i 163
Page 164
164
Page 165
From: To: Laura Jamieson McLeod, Stuart Subject: Notice of Review - P/22/0292 Date: 30 November 2022 14:27:55 Hi Stuart I would like to start by saying that I have run my beauty business from my house for 15 years. I didn’t realise you needed permission to do this until the neighbours reported myself to the council for treating my clients within the cabin and not the house. Neighbours did not have any problems whatsoever with my clients coming in my front door. In fact they were totally oblivious to my clients coming and going a few days per week. A lot of clients walked as they live locally, the others that drove parked outside my house or if there was a car there already they parked in my driveway at the front of the house. NOT the driveway I share with No 10. The clients never presented any threat to the elderly or children nor did they pose any security concern. My clients are not strangers, I would never have a stranger coming to my property. There are many strangers having a daily walk through Kylepark, does this mean we need to stop the public walking around Kylepark? There were 31 objections because my neighbours next door went round the other neighbours up and down the street telling them about the situation and giving them a letter to cut and paste, again they were oblivious to my business before being informed by my neighbours next door. There is also another beauty business operating around the corner from me. Why is it okay for that business to run in Kylepark and not mine? Also a music teacher running a business in Kylepark too, my children went for tuition. There was also a children’s nursery run from the back of the house 3 doors up from mine for many years. Neighbours didn’t have any problems with 10-15 children being dropped off and picked up at the same time. Do or did these businesses have planning permission to operate? How many other businesses are operating from homes in Kylepark that we don’t know about? My family has lived here for 50 years and we very much appreciate that neighbours have certain standards. We put a lot of thought into converting the 3i 165
Page 166
front garden to a large area for us to park our cars to decrease the traffic on the public highway. We are very mindful of our surroundings and would not do anything purposely that would spoil the tranquillity of the area which reflects in the running of my business from my house for 15 years without any neighbours realising, it is apparent the business did not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbours. The arrival and departure of my clients was not noticed by residents either. This would continue if permission was granted. I did stop treating clients from my home when I found out I needed planning permission. I would never knowingly do anything illegal. This has had a detrimental impact on my earnings and I am very worried about the future of our family living in this house. I really am pleading with you to give me the planning permission I need to get the extra income back to help with the increasing energy and living costs. Please feel free to come out and have a look at the area. You will see it’s one small room that one person can work from treating one person at a time, not some huge beauty salon where there would be over 600 cars per week that one neighbour calculated. It certainly has turned into a vendetta against me. A definite case of bullying. Surely this is not fair? Laura Jamieson Sent from my iPad 166
Page 167
Further Representation – National Planning Framework 4 Further Representation From Statement of Observations from Planning Officer on National Planning Framework 4 Andrew Robertson, by email Joseph Tinney, by email Patricia Tinney, by email Appendix 8 3j 167
Page 168
168
Page 169
Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/22/0292 Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Applicant: Miss Laura Jamieson (formerly Mrs Laura Devers) Additional comments requested in regard to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 1.0 Background On 22 December 2022, the PLRB wrote requesting further comments from the Planning Service as an interested party in the above review, in light of the publication of NPF4. On 11 January 2023, the Scottish Parliament gave its approval, as required by section 3CA(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, to the draft revised National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) laid in the Parliament by the Scottish Government on 8 November 2022. The Scottish Ministers will now proceed to adopt and publish the NPF4 in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The existing National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy will remain in place until NPF4 has been adopted. In the meantime, the version of NPF4 approved by Parliament will be a significant material consideration in the consideration of planning applications. NPF4 will become part of the Development Plan when section 13 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 is brought into force which amends section 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. It is Scottish Ministers’ intention to bring these into force on 12 February 2023 and thereafter to adopt NPF4 on 13 February 2023 where it will become part of the Council’s development plan. 2.0 NPF4 Policy Assessment It is considered that the following policies in NPF4 are relevant in the assessment of the PLRB for 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston. NPF4: Policy 1 - Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises states that “when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises.” NPF4: Policy 2 - Climate Mitigation and Adaptation builds on Policy 1 and states that:- “a) Development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. b) Development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. c) Development proposals to retrofit measures to existing developments that reduce emissions or support adaptation to climate change will be supported.” It is considered that the proposals, in line with the original planning assessment of the application against South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (SLLDP2) Policy 2 Climate Change, are not of a scale that would be considered to have any tangible impact (positive or negative) in relation to either the climate and nature crises or climate mitigation and adaption. 3j 169
Page 170
It is noted that the proposals are not located in any environmental designation such as a flood plain nor involved any large-scale development. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place states:- “a) Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. b) Development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places:- Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and mental health. Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces. Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity. Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions. Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. Further details on delivering the six qualities of successful places are set out in Annex D. c) Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported.” NPF4 Policy 15 Local Living and 20-minute Neighbourhoods states:- “a) Development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20-minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to:- • sustainable modes of transport including local public transport and safe, high quality walking, wheeling and cycling networks; • employment; • shopping; • health and social care facilities; • childcare, schools and lifelong learning opportunities; • playgrounds and informal play opportunities, parks, green streets and spaces, community gardens, opportunities for food growth and allotments, sport and recreation facilities; • publicly accessible toilets; • affordable and accessible housing options, ability to age in place and housing diversity.” 170
Page 171
In relation to these 2 policies, it is noted that the proposals could be considered to locate a service within a residential neighbourhood providing local access. It is considered, however, that the application site is located within an area that is already walking distance of a local neighbourhood centre (Uddingston) which provides local access to services including the type proposed. The original planning assessment considered that the business use in a residential street of this nature introduced a level of activity, including traffic, that was not considered in keeping and had a negative impact on the amenity of the area. It is therefore considered that in relation to these policies the proposals would also be considered contrary as they do not improve the quality of the area and go against the connected quality ethos as the proposals generate additional traffic to a narrow, residential street. The location of the proposal is in a residential neighbourhood with limited direct public transport links. The walk from the main public transport links would mainly involve footfall to the local centre on the way to the proposals, where it is considered there are more appropriate locations for a commercial operation of this nature than the current site. The original planning assessment was content that only the use of the building was detrimental to the amenity of the area and that the quality of design and scale was acceptable. It is considered that this would again be the case when assessed against these NPF4 Policies. It is therefore considered that the proposals are contrary to the relevant criteria of Policies 14 and 15 of NPF4. In relation to non-demolition development in Conservation Areas, NPF4 Policy 7 - Historic Assets and Places states:- “a) Development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. The assessment should identify the likely visual or physical impact of any proposals for change, including cumulative effects and provide a sound basis for managing the impacts of change. Proposals should also be informed by national policy and guidance on managing change in the historic environment, and information held within Historic Environment Records.” “d) Development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations include the:- i. architectural and historic character of the area; ii. existing density, built form and layout; and iii. context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials. e) Development proposals in conservation areas will ensure that existing natural and built features which contribute to the character of the conservation area and its setting, including structures, boundary walls, railings, trees and hedges, are retained.” The small-scale nature of the proposals is considered not to meet “with the potentially significant impact” definition and therefore the lack of an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic place as part of the planning submission is not considered contrary to this NPF4 requirement. 171
Page 172
As with the original planning assessment, it is considered that the scale, design and materials of the proposals are not detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area and the proposals accord with the relevant criteria of this NPF4 policy. In relation to business proposals of this scale, NPF4 Policy 26 - Business and Industry states:- “a) Development proposals for business and industry uses on sites allocated for those uses in the LDP will be supported. b) Development proposals for home working, live-work units and micro-businesses will be supported where it is demonstrated that the scale and nature of the proposed business and building will be compatible with the surrounding area and there will be no unacceptable impacts on amenity or neighbouring uses. c) Development proposals for business and industry uses will be supported where they are compatible with the primary business function of the area. Other employment uses will be supported where they will not prejudice the primary function of the area and are compatible with the business/industrial character of the area. d) Development proposals for business, general industrial and storage and distribution uses outwith areas identified for those uses in the LDP will only be supported where:- i. It is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP or identified in the employment land audit; and ii. The nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area. e) Development proposals for business and industry will take into account:- i. Impact on surrounding residential amenity; sensitive uses and the natural and historic environment; ii. The need for appropriate site restoration at the end of a period of commercial use.” The application site is not located within an area designated for business use. It is considered that the business use within an established residential area has not been demonstrated to be compatible with the surrounding area and is considered to have an unacceptable impact on amenity. The business use does not take account of the impact it has on surrounding residential amenity. In relation to householder developments, NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes states:- “g) Householder development proposals will be supported where they:- i. do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials; and ii. do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. h) Householder development proposals that provide adaptations in response to risks from a changing climate or relating to people with health conditions that lead to particular accommodation needs will be supported.” It is considered that the use of the building as a commercial premises results in it not falling within householder development, but it is noted that the original planning decision (to refuse consent) would in effect result in the business use ceasing. The building, if not being used commercially would be considered to fall within householder development. It is considered 172
Page 173
that the building itself would not have a detrimental impact upon the character or environmental quality of the home and surrounding area in terms of size, design, and materials if the commercial use ceased. 3.0 Conclusion It is considered that NPF4 does not introduce any policy criteria that would outweigh the original planning assessment which considered that the impact on residential amenity of the commercial use was detrimental to the surrounding area. As such, it is respectfully requested that the PLRB dismiss the review on the grounds set out within the original report of handling. 173
Page 174
174
Page 175
From: To: Subject: Date: Sandy Robertson McLeod, Stuart RE: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston 10 January 2023 16:02:35 Dear Mr McLeod: Thank you for your letter of 22nd December 2022 regarding Planning Application no. P/22/0292. I note that the decision by the Planning Local Review Body will now be deferred until a decision is made by the Scottish Government regarding the Revised Draft National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Having viewed the Draft NPF4, I do not consider that it makes a significant difference to the situation regarding the proposed Beauty Salon at 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I wish to confirm that my views on this proposed development are unchanged, and that I continue to object to the proposal for the reasons as detailed in previous correspondence with the Council. I trust this makes my views clear to you, and that they will be considered in any review that take lace in days to come. Thank you for keeping me informed, I look forward to hearing further from you when the matter has been progressed. Yours sincerely. Andrew Robertson 1 Kylepark Crecnt Uddingston G71 7DQ Sent from Mail for Windows 3j 175
Page 176
176
Page 177
From: To: Subject: Date: Joseph Tinney McLeod, Stuart Notice of Review – Planning Application No: P/22/0292 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston 12 January 2023 11:23:37 Dear Mr McLeod, I refer to your letter of 22 Dec 2022 informing me of the Revised Draft National Planning Framework[NPF4] . Having carefully read the document with particular reference to the relevant sections I feel that my original objection to retrospective planning permission for a Beauty Business at 12 Kylepark Crescent is very much vindicated in that permission was correctly refused on the grounds that "the development introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity and character of the locale" Policy 26[b] of the NPF4 states "Development proposals for home working live work units and micro businesses will be supported where it is demonstrated that the scale and nature of the proposed business and building will be compatible with the surrounding area and there will be no unacceptable impact on amenity or neighbouring use" The Conservation Area of Kylepark Avenue and its continuation to Kylepark Crescent onto the banks of the River Clyde is first and foremost a well established residential area from around mid 1880s.These Victorian streets are set in what many consider to be one of the most beautiful and charming parts of Uddingston. Any commercial business with regular footfall and traffic would introduce a level of activity that would be detrimental to the amenity and character of the area. It is my hope therefore that the original decision to refuse planning permission is upheld to protect Kylepark Conservation Area for all. Yours sincerely, Joseph Tinney 3j 177
Page 178
178
Page 179
From: To: Patricia Tinney McLeod, Stuart Subject: Re: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston Date: 12 January 2023 10:52:22 Dear Mr McLeod, With reference to the letter below informing me of the Revised Draft National Planning Framework (NPF4) it is my opinion that this strengthens my original objection to retrospective planning permission being given for a Beauty Business to be run from 12 Kylepark Crescent and indeed endorses the reason given by the Planning Department for initially refusing the application on the grounds that "The development introduces a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity and character of the locale" . I refer specifically to Policy 26(b)which states "Development proposals for home working, live -work units and micro businesses will be supported where it is demonstrated that the scale and nature of the proposed business and building will be compatible with the surrounding area and there will be no unacceptable impact on amenity or neighbouring use " Kylepark Crescent is at the heart of a well established Conservation Area and I firmly believe that development of this or any similar business in the area would introduce a level of activity which would not be compatible with the area and would have a detrimental impact .I hope therefore that the original decision to refuse planing permission will be upheld. Yours sincerely Patricia Tinney ------ Original Message ------ From: "McLeod, Stuart" <Stuart.McLeod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk> To: Pat Tinney Sent: Thursday, 22 Dec, 22 At 20:02 Subject: Planning Local Review Body - 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston Dear Ms P Tinney Notice of Review – Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Planning Application No: P/22/0292 3j 179
Page 180
Proposal: Erection of Garden Building for Use as a Beauty Salon (in Retrospect) Location: 12 Kylepark Crescent, Uddingston, G71 7DQ Applicant: Miss Laura Jamieson (formerly Mrs Laura Devers) I refer to the Notice of Review which was due to be determined at a meeting of the Planning Local Review Body (PLRB) at 10.30am on Monday 23 January 2023. As you may be aware, a new planning document, the Revised Draft National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 8 November 2022 for approval. Due to its advanced status, it is a new material consideration in the PLRB’s decision making. Due to the timing of the publishing of this document, it could not have been considered in the original decision relating to the application nor would it have been possible for you, as an interested party, to raise this matter in previous submissions. However, due to its current status, it will now have to be taken into account by the PLRB. Consequently, as an interested party, you are being given until 18 January 2023 to provide comment on the NPF4 in relation to the Review. Should you wish to provide comments they should be sent to me at stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk. For ease of reference, the draft NPF4 can be accessed via the following link:- National Planning Framework 4: Revised Draft (www.gov.scot) If you provide comments, the applicant will be given 14 days to comment on your further submission. Please note that any further representations received will be included in the papers for the PLRB meeting at which this Review will be considered. Unfortunately, the timescales for receiving these further comments mean that consideration of this Notice of Review cannot proceed as planned and details of the alternative arrangements for the meeting of the PLRB will be confirmed in due course. Please do not hesitate to contact me by emailing stuart.mcleod@southlanarkshire.gov.uk if you have any questions in relation to this additional process. Yours sincerely Stuart McLeod Administration Officer 180
Page 181
Applicant’s Comments on the National Planning Framework 4 Appendix 9 3k 181
Page 182
182
Page 183
From: To: Subject: Date: Laura Jamieson McLeod, Stuart Kylepark 03 February 2023 16:07:52 Response to Notice of Review P/22/0292 I would like to stress yet again that my beauty room will not introduce a level of activity that is detrimental to the amenity and character of the locale. I can assure all that nobody would even know I had a client in the room, unless of course neighbours are sitting peering out of their windows watching and waiting for any activity to happen. As I said before I have run my beauty business from my house for 15 years and it did not have any detrimental impact on the conservation area of Kylepark Avenue and its continuation to Kylepark Crescent. There has been a huge amount of neighbours commenting about Kylepark being a well established residential area. I totally agree with this. This is where I reside and I could have any amount of friends coming to my house at anytime of the day. I attend a couple of clubs where we can meet several times per week at each others houses. I have never had a meeting at my house as I didn’t want to cause any detrimental impact to the amenity and character of the locale. Having a few clients coming in one at a time spaced out over the day a few days per week would not be detrimental compared to having 8-10 friends arriving at the same time everyday for a club (gin/book/coffee) This would be detrimental although with this being my home I would be free to do this if I wished. As I have said before I am a very mindful person and would not like to upset the character of the locale. I am keeping everything crossed that you grant me permission to work from home. I am very passionate about what I do and really miss the tranquil setting of my beauty room at home. Sent from my iPhone 3k 183
Page 184
184