Agenda Document Pack - Moray Local Review Body - 13/02/2025
Moray Council · 13 February 2025
Back to Moray Local Review Body — 13 February 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Moray Local Review Body Thursday, 13 February 2025 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Meeting of the Moray Local Review Body is to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Thursday, 13 February 2025 at 09:30. BUSINESS 1. Sederunt 2. Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 3. Minute of meeting held 16 January 2025 5 - 8 4. LR308 - Ward 5 - Heldon and Laich Planning Application 24/00905/APP – Proposed erection of detached garage and conversion of existing garage to create utility, shower room and store at The Forecourt, Cummingston, Elgin, Moray 9 - 82 Summary of Local Review Body functions: To conduct reviews in respect of refusal of planning permission or unacceptable conditions as determined by the delegated officer, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers under Section 43(A)(i) of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town & Country Planning (Scheme of Delegation and Local Review Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013, or where the Delegated Officer has not determined the application within 3 months of registration. Page 1
Page 2
Watching the Meeting You can watch the webcast live by going to: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_43661.html Webcasts are available to view for 1 year following the meeting. You can also attend the meeting in person, if you wish to do so, please come to the High Street entrance door and a member of staff will be let into the building. Page 2
Page 3
GUIDANCE NOTES * Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests - The Chair of the meeting shall seek declarations from any individual or political group at the beginning of a meeting whether any prior decision has been reached on how the individual or members of the group will vote on any item(s) of business on the Agenda, and if so on which item(s). A prior decision shall be one that the individual or the group deems to be mandatory on the individual or the group members such that the individual or the group members will be subject to sanctions should they not vote in accordance with the prior decision. Any such prior decisions will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting. ** Written Questions - Any Member can put one written question about any relevant and competent business within the specified remits not already on the agenda, to the Chair provided it is received by the Proper Officer or Committee Services by 12 noon two working days prior to the day of the meeting. A copy of any written answer provided by the Chair will be published on the Council’s committee management system by 4pm the day before the meeting. The Member who has put the question may, after the answer has been published, ask one supplementary question directly related to the subject matter at the meeting, but no discussion will be allowed. No supplementary question can be put or answered more than 10 minutes after the Council has started on the relevant item of business, except with the consent of the Chair. If a Member does not have the opportunity to put a supplementary question because no time remains, then he or she can submit it in writing to the Proper Officer who will arrange for a written answer to be provided within 7 working days. Page 3
Page 4
MORAY COUNCIL Moray Local Review Body SEDERUNT Councillor Marc Macrae (Chair) Councillor Amber Dunbar (Depute Chair) Councillor Neil Cameron (Member) Councillor Juli Harris (Member) Councillor Paul McBain (Member) Councillor Draeyk van der Horn (Member) Councillor Sonya Warren (Member) Councillor Ben Williams (Member) Clerk Name: Lissa Rowan Clerk Telephone: 07765 741754 Clerk Email: committee.services@moray.gov.uk Page 4
Page 5
MORAY COUNCIL Minute of Meeting of the Moray Local Review Body Thursday, 16 January 2025 Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX PRESENT Councillor Neil Cameron, Councillor Amber Dunbar, Councillor Juli Harris, Councillor Marc Macrae, Councillor Paul McBain, Councillor Draeyk van der Horn. APOLOGIES Councillor Sonya Warren, Councillor Ben Williams IN ATTENDANCE Andrew Miller, Acting Principal Planning Officer; Fiona Olsen, Senior Planning Officer; Emma Mitchell, Senior Planning Officer, all as Planning Advisors, Sean Hoath, Senior Solicitor, as Legal Advisor and Lindsey Robinson, Committee Services Officer. 1. Chair Councillor Marc Macrae, being Chair of the Moray Local review Body, chaired the meeting. 2. Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * In terms of Standing Order 21 and 23 and the Councillor's Code of Conduct, there were no declarations from Group Leaders or Spokespersons in regard to any prior decisions taken on how Members will vote on any item on the agenda or any declarations of Members interests in respect of any item on the agenda. 3. Minute of meeting dated 14 November 2024 The Minute of the meeting dated 14 November 2024 was submitted and approved. 4. LR306 - Ward 5 - Heldon and Laich Planning Application 24/01055/APP - Proposed dwellinghouse within garden ground of 33 Golf Crescent, Hopeman, Elgin, Moray. A request was submitted by the Applicant, seeking a review of the decision of the Appointed Officer, in terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that: The proposal is contrary to the provisions of NPF Policies 14, 16 & 4, and MLDP Policies DP1, part f & Policy EP3 part b) of the Development Plan because: The proposed sub divide site lacks its own active roadside frontage and can only be access via an access drive to be created through the parent property's garden. Item 3. Page 5
Page 6
These characteristics are symptomatic of backland development, leading to the inappropriate subdivision of garden ground to form an additional building plot. It is further noted that the presence of an additional dwelling at this existing cul-de-sac location is considered to increase the density of housing development to the extent that the proposal is considered to be detrimental to the pleasant character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the character of the site and its surrounds which is part of the Burghead to Lossiemouth Coast Special Landscape Area which requires high quality siting characteristics for all development. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies NPF 14, 16 & 4, and MLDP Policies DP1, part f & Policy EP3 part b) of the Development Plan. The Summary of Information report set out the reasons for refusal, including the documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer regarding the planning Application. It also included the Notice of Review, Grounds for Review and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. In response to a question from the Chair as to whether the Legal or Planning Advisers had any preliminary matters to raise, the Planning Adviser stated that, after concerns were raised about the site levels during the site visit, the proposed levels of the new property would match those of the existing property. The Legal Adviser had nothing to raise at this time. The Chair then asked the Moray Local Review Body (MLRB) if it had sufficient information to determine the request for review. In response, the MLRB unanimously agreed that it had sufficient information to determine the case. Councillor Cameron, having considered the case in detail and attended the site visit, moved that the MLRB refuse the appeal and uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 24/01055/APP as the proposal is contrary to the provisions of NPF Policies 14, 16 and 4, and, MLDP Policies DP1, part f & Policy EP3 part b) of the Development Plan. Councillor Harris seconded this. Councillor McBain, having considered the case in detail and attended the site visit, stated that in his opinion the proposal complies with NPF policies 4, 14 and 16. He was of the opinion that it was not a departure from policy as the proposed new build would conform to the character of the existing properties. The Legal Adviser asked Councillor McBain to comment on the other policies used in the decision process as he had only mentioned NPF. Councillor McBain stated that he was of the opinion that NPF 4 gave a fuller account to ensure working within policy and regulations and further stated that the site visit had been instrumental in him making his decision. The Acting Principal Planning Officer advised that if there was conflict between local plans and NPF then NPF would take precedence. He further advised that the reasoning given by Councillor McBain extended to the view that the application also complied with the local plans. Councillor McBain’s amendment was seconded by the Chair. On a division there voted: Page 6
Page 7
For the Motion (3) Councillors Cameron, Harris, and Dunbar For the Amendment (2) Councillors McBain and Macrae Abstentions (1) Councillor Van der Horn Accordingly, the Motion became the finding of the meeting and the MLRB agreed to uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer and to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 24/01055/APP as the proposal contrary to the provisions of NPF Policies 14, 16 & 4, and, MLDP Policies DP1, part f & Policy EP3 part b) of the Development Plan. 5. LR307 - Ward 5 - Heldon and Laich Planning Application 24/00799/APP - Erect detached ancillary annexe for domestic use only at Glendale, Roseisle, Elgin, Moray A request was submitted by the Applicant, seeking a review of the decision of the Appointed Officer, terms of the Scheme of Delegation, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that: The development is contrary to the development plan for the following reasons: The size (85m2 ) and the siting of the annex on higher ground 45m from the main house would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 policy 16 (g) (i) and the development would not reflect the scale or character of the main house or the surrounding area and as such is contrary to MLDP policy DP1 (i) (a). The Summary of Information Report set out the reasons for refusal, including the documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer regarding the planning application. It also included the Notice of Review, Grounds for Review and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. In response to a question from the Chair as to whether the Legal or Planning Advisers had any preliminary matters to raise. The Legal Adviser and the Planning Adviser had nothing to raise at this time. The Chair then asked the Moray Local Review Body (MLRB) if it had sufficient information to determine the request for review. In response, the MLRB unanimously agreed that it had sufficient information to determine the case. Councillor Cameron sought to commend the officers on the amount of information that had been provided to the MLRB and moved to refuse the appeal and uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 24/00799/APP as the proposal is contrary to NPF4 policy 16 (g) (i) and MLDP policy DP1 (i) (a). . Councillor Van der Horn seconded this. There being no one otherwise minded, the MLRB agreed to uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 24/00799/APP as the proposal is contrary to NPF4 policy 16 (g) (i) and MLDP policy DP1 (i) (a). Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
MORAY LOCAL REVIEW BODY 13 FEBRUARY 2025 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FOR CASE No LR308 WARD 5 – HELDON AND LAICH Planning Application 24/00905/APP: Convert existing garage to living accommodation and erect detached garage at The Forecourt, Cummingston, Elgin, Moray Planning permission refused under the Statutory Scheme of Delegation by the Appointed Officer on 30 September 2024 on the grounds that: The proposals are contrary to the Moray Local Development Plan (2020) and National Planning Framework 4 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed double garage would encroach onto land which is currently beyond the MLDP 2020 designated settlement boundary of Cummingston. The introduction of a garage on this area of land would give rise to conditions of ribbon development and a blurring of distinction between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding open countryside which policy EP6 and the Cummingston Settlement Statement seek to avoid. This would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 16 and MLDP2020 Policies DP1 and EP6. 2. The application would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP 2020 EP3 as it would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape area by creating a built form which encroaches onto land not currently within the Cummingston settlement boundary. Documents considered or prepared by the Appointed Officer in respect of the above planning application are attached as Appendix 1. The Notice of the Review, Grounds for Review and any supporting documents submitted by the Applicant are attached as Appendix 2. No Further Representations were received in response to the Notice of Review Item 4. Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 11
APPENDIX 1 DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED OR PREPARED BY THE APPOINTED OFFICER Page 11
Page 12
Page 12
Page 13
Page 1 of 6 The Moray Council Council Office High Street Elgin IV30 1BX Tel: 0300 1234561 Email: development.control@moray.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100605113-013 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Description of Proposal Please describe accurately the work proposed: * (Max 500 characters) Has the work already been started and/ or completed? * No Yes - Started Yes – Completed Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Proposed Erection of Detached Double Garage and Conversion of Existing Garage to Create Utility, Shower Room and Store. Page 13
Page 14
Page 2 of 6 Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Machin Dunn + MacFarlane Mr Neil John MacFarlane Marshall Bank Street Cummingston 11 The Forecourt 01259 212962 FK10 1HP IV30 5XY Scotland Scotland Alloa Elgin neil@mdm-architecture.co.uk Page 14
Page 15
Page 3 of 6 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Pre-Application Discussion Have you discussed your proposal with the planning authority? * Yes No Trees Are there any trees on or adjacent to the application site? * Yes No If yes, please mark on your drawings any trees, known protected trees and their canopy spread close to the proposal site and indicate if any are to be cut back or felled. Access and Parking Are you proposing a new or altered vehicle access to or from a public road? * Yes No If yes, please describe and show on your drawings the position of any existing, altered or new access points, highlighting the changes you proposed to make. You should also show existing footpaths and note if there will be any impact on these. Planning Service Employee/Elected Member Interest Is the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse/partner, either a member of staff within the planning service or an Yes No elected member of the planning authority? * THE FORECOURT Moray Council CUMMINGSTON ELGIN IV30 5XY 868851 312787 Page 15
Page 16
Page 4 of 6 Certificates and Notices CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE UNDER REGULATION 15 – TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 2013 One Certificate must be completed and submitted along with the application form. This is most usually Certificate A, Form 1, Certificate B, Certificate C or Certificate E. Are you/the applicant the sole owner of ALL the land? * Yes No Is any of the land part of an agricultural holding? * Yes No Certificate Required The following Land Ownership Certificate is required to complete this section of the proposal: Certificate A Land Ownership Certificate Certificate and Notice under Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 Certificate A I hereby certify that – (1) - No person other than myself/the applicant was an owner (Any person who, in respect of any part of the land, is the owner or is the lessee under a lease thereof of which not less than 7 years remain unexpired.) of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application. (2) - None of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding Signed: Neil MacFarlane On behalf of: Mr John Marshall Date: 31/05/2024 Please tick here to certify this Certificate. * Page 16
Page 17
Page 5 of 6 Checklist – Application for Householder Application Please take a few moments to complete the following checklist in order to ensure that you have provided all the necessary information in support of your application. Failure to submit sufficient information with your application may result in your application being deemed invalid. The planning authority will not start processing your application until it is valid. a) Have you provided a written description of the development to which it relates?. * Yes No b) Have you provided the postal address of the land to which the development relates, or if the land in question Yes No has no postal address, a description of the location of the land? * c) Have you provided the name and address of the applicant and, where an agent is acting on behalf of the Yes No applicant, the name and address of that agent.? * d) Have you provided a location plan sufficient to identify the land to which it relates showing the situation of the Yes No land in relation to the locality and in particular in relation to neighbouring land? *. This should have a north point and be drawn to an identified scale. e) Have you provided a certificate of ownership? * Yes No f) Have you provided the fee payable under the Fees Regulations? * Yes No g) Have you provided any other plans as necessary? * Yes No Continued on the next page A copy of the other plans and drawings or information necessary to describe the proposals (two must be selected). * You can attach these electronic documents later in the process. Existing and Proposed elevations. Existing and proposed floor plans. Cross sections. Site layout plan/Block plans (including access). Roof plan. Photographs and/or photomontages. Additional Surveys – for example a tree survey or habitat survey may be needed. In some instances you Yes No may need to submit a survey about the structural condition of the existing house or outbuilding. A Supporting Statement – you may wish to provide additional background information or justification for your Yes No Proposal. This can be helpful and you should provide this in a single statement. This can be combined with a Design Statement if required. * You must submit a fee with your application. Your application will not be able to be validated until the appropriate fee has been Received by the planning authority. Declare – For Householder Application I, the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for planning permission as described in this form and the accompanying Plans/drawings and additional information. Declaration Name: Mr Neil MacFarlane Declaration Date: 31/05/2024 Page 17
Page 18
Page 6 of 6 Payment Details Departmental Charge Code: _ Created: 31/05/2024 15:36 Page 18
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
Page 20
Page 21
Existing Side Elevation 1:100 Existing Front Elevation 1:100 Existing Side Elevation 1:100 Existing Rear Elevation 1:100 GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Firth View House West End Curlew B9040 TO HOPEMAN TO BURGHEAD 210 3 4 5 10 20 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 Existing Ground Floor Plan 1:50 Bedroom W. St.W. En-Suite WC St. Hall Lounge Dining Kitchen Utility Garage Family 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Notes 1. The copyright of this drawings and it's content is reserved by machin dunn + macfarlane and is protected by the Copyrights Acts (Section 47, 1988). This material can be used for consultation purposes only and it is issued with the caveat that it is not copied or disclosed to any third party, either wholly or in part, without the written permission of machin dunn + macfarlane. 2. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to ordering materials 3. Drawings should be read in conjunction with all structural and services engineer drawings and specifications Revisions Date Existing Site Plan 1:500 PROJECT DRAWING TITLE CLIENT SCALE DRG NO. DATE STATUS PLANNING APPLICATION Prop. Erection of Double Garage & Internal Alterations at 'The Forecourt', Cummingston Existing Ground Floor Plan, Elevations and Roof Plan Mr J. Marshall As Noted @ A1 16th April 2024 2273B/P/1.02 Existing Site Plan 1:500 Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
Page 28
Page 29
Soakaway Design 2 Project Details Project Title: Project Number: Designer: Global Variables Trench Soakaway Precast Concrete Ring Soakaway Impermeable Area :- Storm Duration :- Void Ratio (Trench Soakaway) :- Soil Infiltration Rate :- Rainfall :- Volumetric Runoff Coeff :- Length = Depth = Width = Ring Size (mm) Depth (metres) Half Empty Time (hours) 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 * Ring soakaways are deemed to have failed if their Depth is greater than 4 metres. The Forecourt, Cummingstown 5227 KD 117 m3 60 minutes 0.3 1.00 2.03E-5 m/sec 0.016 metres 5 metres 0.9 metres0.94 metres Half empty time = 4.28 hours C:\Users\Dir2\DRGCS\DRGCS Sharepoint Site - Documents\Projects\2022 - (4764 -\22.5227 The Forecourt, Cummingstown - Ma 14/12/2022 2.53 1.89 1.47 1.18 0.96 0.68 0.50 0.39 0.31 3.07 3.59 4.10 4.61 5.13 6.15 7.18 8.21 9.23 www.webcomsystems.co.uk 2 Note - 42% Allowance made for Climate Change - Refer - As per the guidance outlined in the CIRIA C753 SuDS Manual 2015, SEPA Document “Climate Change allowances for flood risk assessment in land use” (version 2 March 2022), the developments surface water drainage network is designed to include 42% for climate change. Refer- https://scottishepa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2ddf84e295334f6b93bd0dbbb9ad7417 Page 29
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
Directors Craig Dunn Bsc Arch, BArch (Hons) RIAS RIBA + Neil MacFarlane Bsc (Hons) MCIAT 11Bank Street, Alloa, Clackmannanshire, FK10 1HP mdm architects is a trading name of Machin Dunn and MacFarlane Limited – Registration No SC452611 Scotland T : +44 (0)1259 212962 E : enquiries@mdm-architecture.co.uk W : www.mdm-architecture.co.uk REF: LTR/2273/08/NM 8th August 2024 Moray Council Planning & Building Standards PO Box 6760 Elgin Moray IV30 1BX For the attention of Ms Fiona Olsen Dear Fiona, PROPOSED GARAGE CONVERSION AND ERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON, ELGIN – PLANNING REFERENCE: 24/00905/APP With reference to the above, and further to your e-mail dated 1st August 2024, please refer to the following in respect of the items noted: • Our amended drawing no’s 2273B/P/1.03A and 2273B/P/1.04A, which have been updated to denote the previous boundary to the dwelling curtilage, prior to approval of Planning Consent ref: 23/02133/APP, to allow consideration of the proposals, relative to the settlement boundary. • We would also confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the proposed use within the converted garage space will be ancillary living space to the dwelling itself. This space is not intended to be used, now or in the future, as a separate residential ‘unit’. We trust this is satisfactory to allow the application to continue to progress towards determination, however should you require any additional information or wish to discuss any of this further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Neil MacFarlane BSc (Hons) For Machin Dunn + MacFarlane Limited Enclosures: As stated Page 31
Page 32
Page 32
Page 33
REPORT OF HANDLING Ref No: 24/00905/APP Officer: Fiona Olsen Proposal Description/ Address Convert existing garage to living accommodation and erect detached garage at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray Date: 26.09.2024 Typist Initials: LMC RECOMMENDATION Approve, without or with condition(s) listed below N Refuse, subject to reason(s) listed below Y Legal Agreement required e.g. S,75 N Notification to Scottish Ministers/Historic Scotland N Hearing requirements Departure N Pre-determination N CONSULTATIONS Consultee Date Returned Summary of Response Moray Flood Risk Management 27/06/24 No Objections Contaminated Land 26/06/24 No Objections subject to informatives Transportation Manager 02/07/24 No Objections DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY Policies Dep Any Comments (or refer to Observations below) NPF1 - Tackling the Climate N Complies NPF2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation N Complies NPF3 - Biodiversity N Complies NPF4 - Natural Places See below NPF13 - Sustainable transport N Complies NPF14 - Design, quality and place See below NPF15 - Local living N Complies NPF16 - Quality homes See below NPF22 - Flood risk N Complies NPF23 - Health and safety N Complies PP1 Placemaking N Complies PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth N Complies PP3 Infrastructure and Services N Complies DP1 Development Principles See below Page 33
Page 34
Page 2 of 6 EP2 Biodiversity N Complies EP3 Special Landscape Areas See below EP6 Settlement Boundaries See below EP12 Management and Enhancement Water N Complies EP13 Foul Drainage N Complies EP14 Pollution Contamination Hazards N Complies REPRESENTATIONS Representations Received NO Total number of representations received Names/Addresses of parties submitting representations Summary and Assessment of main issues raised by representations Issue: Comments (PO): OBSERVATIONS – ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan i.e. the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Moral Local Development Plan 2020 (MLDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main planning issues are considered below: Proposal The application seeks planning permission to convert an existing attached single garage to a utility room, shower room and store. A detached double garage is proposed to the west of the site. The proposed garage would measure 7.1m x 6.2m x 5.4 (to the roof ridge) and would be finished in a cream dry dash render, grey composite cladding and a grey concrete roof tile over the pitched roof. These finishes would match that of the main parent dwelling. Site The site is located at the Forecourt, Cummingston and is the westernmost house in the MLDP 2020 designated Cummingston Settlement on the north side of the road. The settlement boundary of Cummingston as identified in the Moray LDP follows the original site boundary of the house however a 5m strip of land to the west of the site was the subject of a recent planning application (23/02133/APP refers) where a retrospective change of use was permitted to include the land as part of the domestic garden ground associated with the existing dwelling. The proposed garage would encroach onto the 5m strip of land which was the subject of the recent change of use. The 5m strip of land on the western boundary remains beyond the MLDP 2020 designated Cummingston settlement boundary. The site is also within the Burghead to Lossiemouth Coast Special Landscape Area (SLA). Page 34
Page 35
Page 3 of 6 Site History The main dwellinghouse was granted planning permission in 2016 under 16/00881/APP. A further application was approved in 2017 to change the use of an area of agricultural land to the north of the site to garden ground (17/00830/APP refers). An application was submitted in 2022 to change the use of a strip of agricultural land (the same as identified in this proposal) to garden ground and to erect a garage/storage shed on that land and that application was subsequently refused (22/01594/APP refers). The decision was appealed to the Moray Local Review Body but the appeal dismissed. It is noted that whilst the 2022 application was under review, it was discovered that some of the proposed works had already been carried out. As outlined, retrospective planning permission was granted to change the use of a 5m strip of farmland to domestic garden ground on the western edge of the site in 2024 (23/02133/APP refers). Conditions were applied to that consent. Condition 1 required landscaping in the form of native hedging to be planted along the western edge of the site (between the 1.8m timber fence and the post and wire field boundary) in the first planting season following the date of the decision. Condition 2 removed permitted development rights under Classes 1A, 1B, 1C & 3A, 3AA, 3B, 3D, 3E of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended, revoked or re-enacted; with or without modification). This condition effectively prevents any ancillary outbuildings on the 5m strip of garden ground being erected as 'Permitted Development'. Policy Assessment Siting and Design (NPF4 Policy 16, MLDP 2020 Policy DP1, EP6, Cummingston Settlement Text) NPF4 Policy 16(g) states that householder development proposals will be supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials and do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. Policy DP1 requires that the scale, density and character of all development be appropriate to the surrounding area, be integrated into the surrounding landscape and not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylight or overbearing loss of amenity. DP1 also states that development proposals will be supported if they conform the relevant Local Development Plan Policies, proposals and additional guidance and meet the criteria set out in DP1. MLDP 2020 Policy EP6 refers to settlement boundaries and outlines that settlement boundaries are drawn around each of the towns, villages and rural groupings representing the limit to which these settlements can expand during the Local Development Plan Period. Development proposals immediately outwith the boundaries of these settlements will not be acceptable unless part of a LONG designation. The Cummingston settlement text also states that a key development strategy/placemaking objective for the village is to restrict growth to prevent coalescence with Hopeman and Burghead and specifically that liner extension along the B9040 is not supported. As outlined, retrospective planning permission was granted in early in 2024 to change the use of a 5m strip of farmland to domestic garden ground (23/02133/APP refers) on the western edge of the site. This decision was considered an acceptable departure from MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP6 on the basis of the scale of the area of agricultural land to be changed to domestic garden ground, the removal of relevant householder permitted development rights and the proposed landscaping to mitigate the impact of the high-level fence. The MLDP 2020 designated Settlement Boundary however remains unchanged and the 5m strip of land is currently still beyond the Cummingston settlement. Page 35
Page 36
Page 4 of 6 The current application seeks to convert an existing attached garage to a utility room, shower room and store and erect a new, detached, single garage to the west of the site. The double garage would encroach onto the new area of garden ground (previously farmland) by approx. 2.5m. The previous application (23/02133/APP refers) was supported as an acceptable departure on the basis that no built development was proposed on the new strip of garden ground. It is noted a previous application in 2022 (22/01594/APP refers) to change the use of the ground were refused and that these included proposals to erect a garage/storage shed. It is also noted that a condition was added to the most recent planning consent removing permitted development rights for Classes 1A, 1B, 1C & 3A, 3AA, 3B, 3D, 3E of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended, revoked or re-enacted; with or without modification). It is therefore considered that the proposals, if allowed, would give rise to conditions of ribbon development or a blurring of the distinction between the built-up area and the surrounding countryside house which policies DP1 and EP6 policies seek to safeguard against and therefore the application will be refused as it would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 16 and MLDP 2020 policies DP1 and EP6. In terms of design, the proposed detached double garage is of a scale and design inkeeping with the main existing property and the proposed materials of a cream dry dash render, grey composite cladding and a grey concrete roof tile over the pitched roof would be considered to integrate the building into the existing site successfully. Neither the proposed double garage, nor the alterations proposed to the existing garage would be considered to give rise to any adverse amenity impact to any neighbouring property (including loss of light or loss of privacy). Should an any application be approved, a condition should be applied to any final consent requiring the detached garage to remain ancillary to the main dwellinghouse. It is also noted that the conversion of the existing garage to a utility room, shower room and store is considered acceptable however this does not override the aforementioned objection with regard to the proposed double garage development which would create a built-form on an area of ground which is not within the Cummingston Settlement Boundary. If allowed this would give rise to conditions of ribbon development or a blurring of the distinction between the settlement and the open countryside and as such the application will be refused as it fails to comply with EP6, DP1 and NPF4 Policy 16. Special Landscape Areas (NPF4 Policy 4, EP3) The site lies within the Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape Area, as identified within the MLDP 2020. NPF4 Policy 4 requires that development proposals that affect locally identified landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where the development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities it has been identified for. Policy EP3 requires that development proposals within SLAs so not prejudice the special qualities of the designated area and adopt the highest standards of design in accordance with policy DP1. Policy EP3 also requires that in urban areas (such as settlements), proposals should reflect the traditional settlement character in terms of siting and design. As outlined, the proposed double garage would encroach onto land which although has been permitted for use as domestic garden ground, is not within the MLDP 2020 designated boundary of Cummingston. Whilst the design of the garage is acceptable and would accord with the existing dwelling, the principal of a built form, encroaching onto ground which is not part of the settlement is not acceptable and would blur the lines between the built-up settlement and open countryside which in turn would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape Area and as such the application will be refused as it would fail to comply with NPF4 policy 4 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP3. Climate Change, Biodiversity and Soils (NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5) The proposal is a householder development only which will result in minimal impact in terms of Page 36
Page 37
Page 5 of 6 climate change and soil disturbance. It is not necessary to seek formal biodiversity enhancement on a householder proposal of this scale and therefore the proposal is deemed to comply with NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5. Parking and Access (NPF4 Policy 13, DP1) There is no alteration to the existing access or parking within the site. Moray Council Transportation Section have been consulted and have raised no objections. As such the proposals would be deemed to comply with the Transportation requirements of DP1 and NPF4 Policy 13. Contamination (NPF4 Policy 23, EP14) The Council’s Contaminated Land Section have been consulted and have raised no objections however an informative has been recommended informing the applicant that the site forms part of a forming filling station with underground fuel tanks and that whilst a site investigation assessment has been undertaken, safe development is the responsibility of the developer. If the application were to be approved, this would be added as an informative on any final consent. Conclusion The proposals are unacceptable as the proposed double garage would encroach onto land which is currently beyond the MLDP 2020 designated settlement boundary of Cummingston. As such, the introduction of a garage on this area of land would give rise to conditions of ribbon development and a blurring of distinction between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding open countryside which policy EP6 and the Cummingston Settlement Statement seek to avoid. In turn the application would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP 2020 EP3 as it would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape area by creating a built form which encroaches onto land not currently within the Cummingston settlement boundary. As such the application will be refused as it fails to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 16 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1, EP3 and EP6. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT None HISTORY Reference No. Description Retrospective consent to change of use of land from agricultural to garden ground relocation of dwelling access and erection of wall to southern boundary timber fence and landscaping to western boundary at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray IV30 5XY 23/02133/APP Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 27/03/24 Change of use to garden ground and erect a garage/storage shed at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray IV30 5XY 22/01594/APP Decision Refuse Date Of Decision 19/01/23 Change of use from agricultural land to garden ground on Land To Rear Of Former Filling Station Main Street Cummingston Moray 17/00830/APP Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 31/07/17 Demolish building and erect 2 storey dwellinghouse with integral garage and Page 37
Page 38
Page 6 of 6 16/00881/APP associated works at Old Filling Station Cummingston Elgin Moray IV30 5XY Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 20/07/16 ADVERT Advert Fee paid? N/A Local Newspaper Reason for Advert Date of expiry DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (PGU) Status N/A DOCUMENTS, ASSESSMENTS etc. * * Includes Environmental Statement, Appropriate Assessment, Design Statement, Design and Access Statement, RIA, TA, NIA, FRA etc Supporting information submitted with application? YES Summary of main issues raised in each statement/assessment/report Document Name: Soakaway Sizing Calculations (ref: 5227, received 18/06/2024) Main Issues: Provides calculations for new surface water soakaway within the site. S.75 AGREEMENT Application subject to S.75 Agreement NO Summary of terms of agreement: Location where terms or summary of terms can be inspected: DIRECTION(S) MADE BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS (under DMR2008 Regs) Section 30 Relating to EIA NO Section 31 Requiring planning authority to provide information and restrict grant of planning permission NO Section 32 Requiring planning authority to consider the imposition of planning conditions NO Summary of Direction(s) Page 38
Page 39
Page 39
Page 40
(Page 2 of 3) Ref: 24/00905/APP IMPORTANT YOUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE REASONS and NOTES BELOW SCHEDULE OF REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL By this Notice, Moray Council has REFUSED this proposal. The Council’s reason(s) for this decision are as follows: - The proposals are contrary to the Moray Local Development Plan (2020) and National Planning Framework 4 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed double garage would encroach onto land which is currently beyond the MLDP 2020 designated settlement boundary of Cummingston. The introduction of a garage on this area of land would give rise to conditions of ribbon development and a blurring of distinction between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding open countryside which policy EP6 and the Cummingston Settlement Statement seek to avoid. This would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 16 and MLDP2020 Policies DP1 and EP6. 2. The application would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP 2020 EP3 as it would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape area by creating a built form which encroaches onto land not currently within the Cummingston settlement boundary. LIST OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT The following plans and drawings form part of the decision:- Reference Version Title 100 Proposed drainage layout and details 2273B/P/1.04 A Garage - elevations floor and site plan 2273B/P/1.03 A Dwellinghouse - elevations and floor plan 2273B/P/1.01 Location plan NOTICE OF APPEAL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months from the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to The Clerk, Moray Council Local Review Body, Legal and Committee Services, Council Offices, High Street, Elgin IV30 1BX. This form is Page 40
Page 41
(Page 3 of 3) Ref: 24/00905/APP also available and can be submitted online or downloaded from www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land’s interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Page 41
Page 42
Page 42
Page 43
APPENDIX 2 NOTICE OF REVIEW, GROUNDS FOR REVIEW & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Page 43
Page 44
Page 44
Page 45
Page 1 of 5 The Moray Council Council Office High Street Elgin IV30 1BX Tel: 0300 1234561 Email: development.control@moray.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100605113-020 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Machin Dunn + MacFarlane Neil MacFarlane Bank Street 11 01259 212962 FK10 1HP Scotland Alloa neil@mdm-architecture.co.uk Page 45
Page 46
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr THE FORECOURT John Moray Council Marshall CUMMINGSTON Cummingston The Forecourt ELGIN IV30 5XY IV30 5XY Scotland 868851 Elgin 312787 Page 46
Page 47
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Proposed Erection of Detached Garage and Conversion of Existing Garage to Create Utility, Shower Room and Store. Please refer to 'LRB Review Statement' document in full for details and our contention planning approval ought to have been granted. Page 47
Page 48
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. 2273B - The Forecourt_Garage Appeal Final_Single Sheets; 2273B - The Forecourt_Garage Appeal Final_Spread Booklet; Drawing no's 2273B/P/1.01; 2273B/P/1.02; 2273B/P/1.03A; 2273B/P/1.04A; 22.5227.100_Proposed Drainage Layout and Details; Soakaway Sizing Calculations; 2273-08-NM_Additional information cover letter; Planning Decision Ref:24/00905/APP; Report of Handling ref:24/00905/APP; Householder Application Form; 24/00905/APP 30/09/2024 31/05/2024 Page 48
Page 49
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Neil MacFarlane Declaration Date: 13/12/2024 Page 49
Page 50
APPLICATION TO REVIEW REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT DECEMBER 2024AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON, ELGIN machin dunn + macfarlane architecture and design Page 50
Page 51
01 I DECEMBER 2024 Document prepared by : machin dunn + macfarlane architecture and design : 01259 212962 : enquiries@mdm-architecture.co.uk : www.mdm-architecture.co.uk T E W On Behalf of : Mr John Marshall - Applicant : jm@beatsons.co.ukE APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT Page 51
Page 52
APPLICATION TO REVIEW REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON, ELGIN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP 3.0 CONCLUSION DECEMBER 2024 I 02 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT Page 52
Page 53
03 I DECEMBER 2024 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT *Crown Copyright - License No. OI1198287*Page 53
Page 54
DECEMBER 2024 I 04 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT 1.0 I INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Introduction This statement is lodged in support of our request for review of the decision to refuse planning application 24/00905/APP in relation to our proposal to ‘Convert existing garage to living accommodation and erect detached garage’ at The Forecourt, Cummingston, Elgin, Moray. The planning application was refused permission on 30th September 2024, with two reasons for refusal. We will address these reasons and forward our own contention, that planning permission ought to be granted. *Proposed Floor Plan* *Proposed Elevations* Page 54
Page 55
05 I DECEMBER 2024 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT 2.0 I DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION REFERENCE: 24/00905/APP 2.1 - Determination of Planning Application ref: 24/00905 In determining the application, the Planning Offi cer cited two reasons for refusal within their report of handling. Reason 1 was stated as follows: “The proposed double garage would encroach onto land which is currently beyond the MLDP 2020 designated settlement boundary of Cummingston. The introduction of a garage on this area of land would give rise to conditions of ribbon development and a blurring of distinction between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding open countryside which policy EP6 and the Cummingston Settlement Statement seek to avoid. This would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 16 and MLDP2020 Policies DP1 and EP6.” In reviewing Policy EP6, the Council’s justifi cation/notes states understandably, that it wishes to guide development to the “towns, villages and rural groupings, preventing ribbon development and maintaining a clear distinction between the built-up area and the countryside.” The policy itself states that development proposals “outwith the boundaries of these settlements will not be acceptable, unless the proposal is a designated “LONG” term development site….” We can understand and support the concept of avoiding ribbon development and the potential for blurring the distinction between the built up area and the surrounding countryside. However, our proposal relates to the development of an existing property, within an already defi ned curtilage. Firth B9040 Existing RWP St. **Dashed RED line denotes previous boundary of curtilage, prior to approval of Planning Consent ref: 23/02133/APP *Proposed Site Layout*Page 55
Page 56
DECEMBER 2024 I 06 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT It is not disputed that to make our proposals work, then there is a modest incursion of the proposed garage (circa 16m2) beyond the existing ‘countryside’ boundary, however this is now wholly contained within the existing garden ground and the defi ned plot curtilage. This has been reinforced, as can be seen from site where the obvious boundary is now delineated by a garden fence aligning with the boundary previously granted by the Council under approval ref: 23/02133/APP. In real terms, the proposal extends westwards no greater than the established development of the village on the southern side of the B9040. It would not extend Cummingston any nearer to Burghead than the westernmost point of the village as it presently exists. Our proposal does not seek to “grow” the village, rather it seeks to consolidate an existing residential property. Approving this modest domestic extension would not impinge on the policy of maintaining a clear distinction between the built up area and the countryside beyond. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to contend that our proposal does not coalesce the settlement of Cummingston with Burghead. We believe that as the proposal seeks to enhance an existing residential property, there is no greater potential for ribbon development either. Were a new residential property being proposed then we could appreciate the Council’s reservations - That is not the case with our proposal. *Image Copyright - Google Maps* *View of dwelling, approaching from West* *Image Copyright - Google Maps* *View of Proposed Development Site* Page 56
Page 57
07 I DECEMBER 2024 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT 2.2 - Existing and Proposed Streetscapes Turning to the Cummingston Settlement Text, the Development Strategy/Placemaking Objectives has the following bullet points: • Restrict growth to prevent coalescence with Hopeman and Burghead. Linear extension along the B9040 is not supported. Our proposal does not threaten this objective, given that we are consolidating an existing residential development - We do not seek to “grow” the village. The proposal is a domestic type extension where the key issue is that, in order to facilitate our proposal, we seek to incorporate a strip of land which is technically outwith the village boundary, albeit is wholly within the boundary of the property itself - Planning permission has previously been granted for its change of use to garden ground. Our domestic proposal does not threaten to undermine the objective of maintaining separation of Burghead and Cummingston. *Existing Streetscape* • To preserve existing linear form and character of the village. Our proposals do not seek to undermine this objective either. The character of the village would not be impacted by our proposal and it can conceivably be seen as reinforcing the linear form, since the proposed structure would largely align itself in position with the dwelling house on site. • Cummingston is described as being characterised by its linear street pattern with a strong building line onto the road edge, with simple forms and traditional proportions characteristic of the village. The form and style of our proposed garage is not untypical of garages and outbuildings in rural areas. By developing in this location, albeit we have to look to modestly extend to the west, we are seeking to reinforce the character of the village. Page 57
Page 58
DECEMBER 2024 I 08 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT • Development proposals in the Special Landscape Area must refl ect the traditional settlement character in terms of siting and design and respect the qualities of the designation. In response, our proposals wholly refl ect the traditional settlement character in terms of its siting. *Proposed Streetscape* This can be further emphasised by a direct quote from the planning offi cer within their report of handling: ‘In terms of design, the proposed detached double garage is of a scale and design inkeeping with the main existing property and the proposed materials of a cream dry dash render, grey composite cladding and a grey concrete roof tile over the pitched roof would be considered to integrate the building into the existing site successfully. Neither the proposed double garage, nor the alterations proposed to the existing garage would be considered to give rise to any adverse amenity impact to any neighbouring property (including loss of light or loss of privacy). Should an any application be approved, a condition should be applied to any fi nal consent requiring the detached garage to remain ancillary to the main dwellinghouse.’ Page 58
Page 59
09 I DECEMBER 2024 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT 2.3- Second Reason for Refusal The Planning Offi cer cited the following as the second reason for refusal within their report of handling: “The application would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP 2020 EP3 as it would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape area by creating a built form which encroaches onto land not currently within the Cummingston settlement boundary.” Policy EP3 (1) relates to Special Landscape Areas (SLA’s) and Landscape Character. It states “Development proposals within SLA’s will only be permitted where they do not prejudice the special qualities of the designated area……” Our proposal fundamentally does not seek to undermine the principle of this policy. It is doubtful that our proposal could even do so, since it is sited and designed in such a way as to be seen in context with the existing larger structure that is the dwelling house on this site. It is an ancillary building, where the external execution has been chosen to seek to mitigate its relative scale. As outlined above, the siting has been chosen to refl ect the traditional settlement character and if anything, seeks to consolidate the linear development of the village. The proposals have been designed to accommodate the needs of the Client brief, yet refl ect a country style characteristic in its external appearance. *Image Copyright - M oray Local Development Plan* *Western extents of Existing Settlement Boundary* - As noted in current LDP, albeit now outdatedPage 59
Page 60
DECEMBER 2024 I 10 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT *Western Settlement Boundary defi ned by ‘ACTUAL’ plot curtilages* *Land Subject to Planning Approval ref: 23/02133/APP* 2.4 - Summary of Consultation Repsonses No public representations were received in response to the proposals from neighbouring properties or additional members of the public. The Statutory Consultee responses can also be summarised as follows: Moray Flood Risk Management – No Objections Contaminated Land – No Objections, subject to informatives Transportation Manager – No Objections It can therefore be asserted that there are no technical considerations relative to the proposals, which would prevent a positive determination. *Land Subject to Planning Approval ref: 17/00830/APP* Page 60
Page 61
11 I DECEMBER 2024 APPLICATION TO REVIEW PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 24/00905/APP AT ‘THE FORECOURT’, CUMMINGSTON I LRB REVIEW STATEMENT 3.0 I CONCLUSION 3.1 - Conclusion In conclusion, we have sought to bring forward a proposal, which, while acknowledging the modest extension westward of the existing boundary line of the village, seeks to harmonize this with the western most extent of development on the southern side of the road at this location in the village. The proposal is not intended to undermine the policy objectives relating to coalescence and we are confi dent that it doesn’t. This is not a proposal for a new build property, where concerns regarding potential for blurring the distinction between settlement and countryside could be understood. This proposal, very clearly, is for an ancillary building to serve the existing dwelling house on site. Our proposal seeks to reinforce the linear characteristics of the village yet at the same time does not give rise to ribbon development as the proposal is wholly contained within the already defi ned, garden ground. There is therefore, no erosion to the qualities of the Special Landscape Area. We contend that our carefully considered proposal complies with the spirit of the policies outlined from the Local Development Plan and by extension the National Planning Framework policies that are highlighted. It is respectfully requested that the Council reconsider the original decision to refuse the planning application, and instead grant planning permission for our proposal. Page 61
Page 62
Page 62
Page 63
(Page 1 of 3) Ref: 24/00905/APP MORAY COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997, as amended REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION [Heldon And Laich] Application for Planning Permission TO Mr John Marshall c/o Machin Dunn + MacFarlane 11 Bank Street Alloa FK10 1HP With reference to your application for planning permission under the above mentioned Act, the Council in exercise of their powers under the said Act, have decided to REFUSE your application for the following development:- Convert existing garage to living accommodation and erect detached garage at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray and for the reason(s) set out in the attached schedule. Date of Notice: 30 September 2024 HEAD OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Economy, Environment and Finance Moray Council Council Office High Street ELGIN Moray IV30 1BX Page 63
Page 64
(Page 2 of 3) Ref: 24/00905/APP IMPORTANT YOUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE REASONS and NOTES BELOW SCHEDULE OF REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL By this Notice, Moray Council has REFUSED this proposal. The Council’s reason(s) for this decision are as follows: - The proposals are contrary to the Moray Local Development Plan (2020) and National Planning Framework 4 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed double garage would encroach onto land which is currently beyond the MLDP 2020 designated settlement boundary of Cummingston. The introduction of a garage on this area of land would give rise to conditions of ribbon development and a blurring of distinction between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding open countryside which policy EP6 and the Cummingston Settlement Statement seek to avoid. This would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 16 and MLDP2020 Policies DP1 and EP6. 2. The application would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP 2020 EP3 as it would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape area by creating a built form which encroaches onto land not currently within the Cummingston settlement boundary. LIST OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT The following plans and drawings form part of the decision:- Reference Version Title 100 Proposed drainage layout and details 2273B/P/1.04 A Garage - elevations floor and site plan 2273B/P/1.03 A Dwellinghouse - elevations and floor plan 2273B/P/1.01 Location plan NOTICE OF APPEAL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 within three months from the date of this notice. The notice of review should be addressed to The Clerk, Moray Council Local Review Body, Legal and Committee Services, Council Offices, High Street, Elgin IV30 1BX. This form is Page 64
Page 65
(Page 3 of 3) Ref: 24/00905/APP also available and can be submitted online or downloaded from www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land’s interest in the land in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Page 65
Page 66
Page 66
Page 67
REPORT OF HANDLING Ref No: 24/00905/APP Officer: Fiona Olsen Proposal Description/ Address Convert existing garage to living accommodation and erect detached garage at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray Date: 26.09.2024 Typist Initials: LMC RECOMMENDATION Approve, without or with condition(s) listed below N Refuse, subject to reason(s) listed below Y Legal Agreement required e.g. S,75 N Notification to Scottish Ministers/Historic Scotland N Hearing requirements Departure N Pre-determination N CONSULTATIONS Consultee Date Returned Summary of Response Moray Flood Risk Management 27/06/24 No Objections Contaminated Land 26/06/24 No Objections subject to informatives Transportation Manager 02/07/24 No Objections DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY Policies Dep Any Comments (or refer to Observations below) NPF1 - Tackling the Climate N Complies NPF2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation N Complies NPF3 - Biodiversity N Complies NPF4 - Natural Places See below NPF13 - Sustainable transport N Complies NPF14 - Design, quality and place See below NPF15 - Local living N Complies NPF16 - Quality homes See below NPF22 - Flood risk N Complies NPF23 - Health and safety N Complies PP1 Placemaking N Complies PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth N Complies PP3 Infrastructure and Services N Complies DP1 Development Principles See below Page 67
Page 68
Page 2 of 6 EP2 Biodiversity N Complies EP3 Special Landscape Areas See below EP6 Settlement Boundaries See below EP12 Management and Enhancement Water N Complies EP13 Foul Drainage N Complies EP14 Pollution Contamination Hazards N Complies REPRESENTATIONS Representations Received NO Total number of representations received Names/Addresses of parties submitting representations Summary and Assessment of main issues raised by representations Issue: Comments (PO): OBSERVATIONS – ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan i.e. the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Moral Local Development Plan 2020 (MLDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main planning issues are considered below: Proposal The application seeks planning permission to convert an existing attached single garage to a utility room, shower room and store. A detached double garage is proposed to the west of the site. The proposed garage would measure 7.1m x 6.2m x 5.4 (to the roof ridge) and would be finished in a cream dry dash render, grey composite cladding and a grey concrete roof tile over the pitched roof. These finishes would match that of the main parent dwelling. Site The site is located at the Forecourt, Cummingston and is the westernmost house in the MLDP 2020 designated Cummingston Settlement on the north side of the road. The settlement boundary of Cummingston as identified in the Moray LDP follows the original site boundary of the house however a 5m strip of land to the west of the site was the subject of a recent planning application (23/02133/APP refers) where a retrospective change of use was permitted to include the land as part of the domestic garden ground associated with the existing dwelling. The proposed garage would encroach onto the 5m strip of land which was the subject of the recent change of use. The 5m strip of land on the western boundary remains beyond the MLDP 2020 designated Cummingston settlement boundary. The site is also within the Burghead to Lossiemouth Coast Special Landscape Area (SLA). Page 68
Page 69
Page 3 of 6 Site History The main dwellinghouse was granted planning permission in 2016 under 16/00881/APP. A further application was approved in 2017 to change the use of an area of agricultural land to the north of the site to garden ground (17/00830/APP refers). An application was submitted in 2022 to change the use of a strip of agricultural land (the same as identified in this proposal) to garden ground and to erect a garage/storage shed on that land and that application was subsequently refused (22/01594/APP refers). The decision was appealed to the Moray Local Review Body but the appeal dismissed. It is noted that whilst the 2022 application was under review, it was discovered that some of the proposed works had already been carried out. As outlined, retrospective planning permission was granted to change the use of a 5m strip of farmland to domestic garden ground on the western edge of the site in 2024 (23/02133/APP refers). Conditions were applied to that consent. Condition 1 required landscaping in the form of native hedging to be planted along the western edge of the site (between the 1.8m timber fence and the post and wire field boundary) in the first planting season following the date of the decision. Condition 2 removed permitted development rights under Classes 1A, 1B, 1C & 3A, 3AA, 3B, 3D, 3E of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended, revoked or re-enacted; with or without modification). This condition effectively prevents any ancillary outbuildings on the 5m strip of garden ground being erected as 'Permitted Development'. Policy Assessment Siting and Design (NPF4 Policy 16, MLDP 2020 Policy DP1, EP6, Cummingston Settlement Text) NPF4 Policy 16(g) states that householder development proposals will be supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials and do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. Policy DP1 requires that the scale, density and character of all development be appropriate to the surrounding area, be integrated into the surrounding landscape and not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylight or overbearing loss of amenity. DP1 also states that development proposals will be supported if they conform the relevant Local Development Plan Policies, proposals and additional guidance and meet the criteria set out in DP1. MLDP 2020 Policy EP6 refers to settlement boundaries and outlines that settlement boundaries are drawn around each of the towns, villages and rural groupings representing the limit to which these settlements can expand during the Local Development Plan Period. Development proposals immediately outwith the boundaries of these settlements will not be acceptable unless part of a LONG designation. The Cummingston settlement text also states that a key development strategy/placemaking objective for the village is to restrict growth to prevent coalescence with Hopeman and Burghead and specifically that liner extension along the B9040 is not supported. As outlined, retrospective planning permission was granted in early in 2024 to change the use of a 5m strip of farmland to domestic garden ground (23/02133/APP refers) on the western edge of the site. This decision was considered an acceptable departure from MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP6 on the basis of the scale of the area of agricultural land to be changed to domestic garden ground, the removal of relevant householder permitted development rights and the proposed landscaping to mitigate the impact of the high-level fence. The MLDP 2020 designated Settlement Boundary however remains unchanged and the 5m strip of land is currently still beyond the Cummingston settlement. Page 69
Page 70
Page 4 of 6 The current application seeks to convert an existing attached garage to a utility room, shower room and store and erect a new, detached, single garage to the west of the site. The double garage would encroach onto the new area of garden ground (previously farmland) by approx. 2.5m. The previous application (23/02133/APP refers) was supported as an acceptable departure on the basis that no built development was proposed on the new strip of garden ground. It is noted a previous application in 2022 (22/01594/APP refers) to change the use of the ground were refused and that these included proposals to erect a garage/storage shed. It is also noted that a condition was added to the most recent planning consent removing permitted development rights for Classes 1A, 1B, 1C & 3A, 3AA, 3B, 3D, 3E of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended, revoked or re-enacted; with or without modification). It is therefore considered that the proposals, if allowed, would give rise to conditions of ribbon development or a blurring of the distinction between the built-up area and the surrounding countryside house which policies DP1 and EP6 policies seek to safeguard against and therefore the application will be refused as it would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 16 and MLDP 2020 policies DP1 and EP6. In terms of design, the proposed detached double garage is of a scale and design inkeeping with the main existing property and the proposed materials of a cream dry dash render, grey composite cladding and a grey concrete roof tile over the pitched roof would be considered to integrate the building into the existing site successfully. Neither the proposed double garage, nor the alterations proposed to the existing garage would be considered to give rise to any adverse amenity impact to any neighbouring property (including loss of light or loss of privacy). Should an any application be approved, a condition should be applied to any final consent requiring the detached garage to remain ancillary to the main dwellinghouse. It is also noted that the conversion of the existing garage to a utility room, shower room and store is considered acceptable however this does not override the aforementioned objection with regard to the proposed double garage development which would create a built-form on an area of ground which is not within the Cummingston Settlement Boundary. If allowed this would give rise to conditions of ribbon development or a blurring of the distinction between the settlement and the open countryside and as such the application will be refused as it fails to comply with EP6, DP1 and NPF4 Policy 16. Special Landscape Areas (NPF4 Policy 4, EP3) The site lies within the Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape Area, as identified within the MLDP 2020. NPF4 Policy 4 requires that development proposals that affect locally identified landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where the development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities it has been identified for. Policy EP3 requires that development proposals within SLAs so not prejudice the special qualities of the designated area and adopt the highest standards of design in accordance with policy DP1. Policy EP3 also requires that in urban areas (such as settlements), proposals should reflect the traditional settlement character in terms of siting and design. As outlined, the proposed double garage would encroach onto land which although has been permitted for use as domestic garden ground, is not within the MLDP 2020 designated boundary of Cummingston. Whilst the design of the garage is acceptable and would accord with the existing dwelling, the principal of a built form, encroaching onto ground which is not part of the settlement is not acceptable and would blur the lines between the built-up settlement and open countryside which in turn would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape Area and as such the application will be refused as it would fail to comply with NPF4 policy 4 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP3. Climate Change, Biodiversity and Soils (NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5) The proposal is a householder development only which will result in minimal impact in terms of Page 70
Page 71
Page 5 of 6 climate change and soil disturbance. It is not necessary to seek formal biodiversity enhancement on a householder proposal of this scale and therefore the proposal is deemed to comply with NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5. Parking and Access (NPF4 Policy 13, DP1) There is no alteration to the existing access or parking within the site. Moray Council Transportation Section have been consulted and have raised no objections. As such the proposals would be deemed to comply with the Transportation requirements of DP1 and NPF4 Policy 13. Contamination (NPF4 Policy 23, EP14) The Council’s Contaminated Land Section have been consulted and have raised no objections however an informative has been recommended informing the applicant that the site forms part of a forming filling station with underground fuel tanks and that whilst a site investigation assessment has been undertaken, safe development is the responsibility of the developer. If the application were to be approved, this would be added as an informative on any final consent. Conclusion The proposals are unacceptable as the proposed double garage would encroach onto land which is currently beyond the MLDP 2020 designated settlement boundary of Cummingston. As such, the introduction of a garage on this area of land would give rise to conditions of ribbon development and a blurring of distinction between the built-up area of the settlement and the surrounding open countryside which policy EP6 and the Cummingston Settlement Statement seek to avoid. In turn the application would also fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 4 and MLDP 2020 EP3 as it would erode the special qualities of the designated Burghead to Lossiemouth Special Landscape area by creating a built form which encroaches onto land not currently within the Cummingston settlement boundary. As such the application will be refused as it fails to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 16 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1, EP3 and EP6. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT None HISTORY Reference No. Description Retrospective consent to change of use of land from agricultural to garden ground relocation of dwelling access and erection of wall to southern boundary timber fence and landscaping to western boundary at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray IV30 5XY 23/02133/APP Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 27/03/24 Change of use to garden ground and erect a garage/storage shed at The Forecourt Cummingston Elgin Moray IV30 5XY 22/01594/APP Decision Refuse Date Of Decision 19/01/23 Change of use from agricultural land to garden ground on Land To Rear Of Former Filling Station Main Street Cummingston Moray 17/00830/APP Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 31/07/17 Demolish building and erect 2 storey dwellinghouse with integral garage and Page 71
Page 72
Page 6 of 6 16/00881/APP associated works at Old Filling Station Cummingston Elgin Moray IV30 5XY Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 20/07/16 ADVERT Advert Fee paid? N/A Local Newspaper Reason for Advert Date of expiry DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (PGU) Status N/A DOCUMENTS, ASSESSMENTS etc. * * Includes Environmental Statement, Appropriate Assessment, Design Statement, Design and Access Statement, RIA, TA, NIA, FRA etc Supporting information submitted with application? YES Summary of main issues raised in each statement/assessment/report Document Name: Soakaway Sizing Calculations (ref: 5227, received 18/06/2024) Main Issues: Provides calculations for new surface water soakaway within the site. S.75 AGREEMENT Application subject to S.75 Agreement NO Summary of terms of agreement: Location where terms or summary of terms can be inspected: DIRECTION(S) MADE BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS (under DMR2008 Regs) Section 30 Relating to EIA NO Section 31 Requiring planning authority to provide information and restrict grant of planning permission NO Section 32 Requiring planning authority to consider the imposition of planning conditions NO Summary of Direction(s) Page 72
Page 73
The Contractor Must Check All Invert Levels On The Existing Manholes As Soon As They Takes Control Of The Site And Advise Engineer To Allow A Check Of The Drainage To Be Carried Out. Proposed Drainage Legend Denotes Ø 100mm UPVC Storm Water Sewer Laid At 1:100 U.N.O. Incurtlage Drainage Notes 1. All Levels Shown Must Be Confirmed On Site Prior To Commencing Work. 2. The Contractor Should Evaluate Which Drainage Lines Require Concrete Protection, As A Result Of The Crown Of The Pipe Being < 1.2m From The Finished Trafficked Level. 3. The Contractor Must Ensure That The Location Of RWP's & SVP's Indicated On This Drawing Coincide With The Location Of The RWP's & SVP's On The Architects Current Building Layout Plan. 5. All Pipe To Pipe Connections Are To Be Made Crown Of Pipe To Crown Of Pipe Unless Noted Otherwise. 6. All Drainage To Be Installed In Accordance With The Manufacturers Recommendations And With Section 3 - Enviroment; Scottish Building Standards Agency - Technical Handbooks. 7. All External Drainage To Be Constructed And Installed In Accordance With BS EN 752-3: 1997 (Amendment 2), BS EN 752-4: 1998 And BS EN 1610: 1998. 4. Refer To Architects Internal Layout For All Internal POP UP/SVP Setting Out Locations. Denotes Storm Water Deep Filter Sub-base Denotes Surface Water Catch PitSWCP Denotes Surface Water Inspection ChamberSWIC Denotes Surface Water Rodding EyeR/E Denotes Ø 100mm Perforated Carrier Pipe Within Filter Sub-base Note - Sub-soil PercolationTesting Carried Out By Others (Refer Cameron & Ross Report 26.10.16) In Accordance With BS6297:1983 Confirmed An Average Sub-soil Percolation Value (Vp) of 16.4 secs/mm Garage Roof Area = 82 sq.m. Note - Soakaway To Be Constructed At Least 5m From Boundaries & Buildings SWCP R/E R/E R/E R/E 5m Long x 1m Wide x 0.9m Deep Soakaway - See Seperate Detail Rigidrain Catchpit Chamber Scale 1:20 (UNLOADED AREA, <3.0m) GL 300 Ø 110 / Ø 150mm UPVC Pipe Rigidrain D/S Coupling Catchpit Chamber150mm Bed & Granular Surround. Single-Sized To BS882 150mm Bed & Granular Surround. Single-Sized To BS882 Galvanised Frame & Lockable Lid Typical Rodding Eye Detail Scale 1:25 GL IL Airtight Oval Rodding Eye Cover To Suit Pipe Diameter. Min 100mm GEN3 Concrete Surround Refer To Drainage Layout For Pipe Diameter And Invert Level 45° Radius Bend GL Soakaway Trench Detail Scale 1:20 Inlet Trench Lined On All Sides With Terram 700 Membrane To Prevent Ingress Of Fines And Filled With 30 - 60 Clean Graded Stone Ø 100mm Perforated Pipe Over Full Length Of Trench (Perforations Facing Downwards) Min 450mm Cover 900 Ø 150mm UPVC Pipe For Inspection. Capped With Slab 3.5m Long x 1m Wide Note: Soakaway Must Be Located A Minimum Of 5metres From Any Boundary Or Foundation Bedding For Pipe In Single Trench Scale 1:10 GL Bc 450 Bc/2 Bc/2 150 300 (Min) Bedding For Pipe In Single Trench, Trafficked Areas Scale 1:10 GL Bc 450 Bc/2 Bc/2 150 300 (Min) 300 (Min) 300300 Where Depth Of Cover Is Less Than 900mm, Pipe To Be Protected With 100mm Thk C35 Concrete Slab With 1 Layer A393 Mesh At Mid Depth. Slab To Extend 300mm From Sides Of Trench Note: Protective Slab Required In Trafficked Areas Where Depth Of Cover Is Less Than 900mm. Selected As Dug Selected As Dug Granular Fill (Well Compacted) Granular Bedding (Well Compacted) Granular Fill (Well Compacted) Granular Bedding (Well Compacted) Note: Granular fill / Bedding should pass 10mm-25mm Sieve, and be retained on a 5mm Sieve Notes: Revision Client Architect Project Drawing Engineer: Technician: Project No. Drawing No. Date: Date: Revision Drawing Scale: email: admin@drgcs.co.uk ANY VARIATION FROM THE DESIGN SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING MUST BE NOTIFIED TO THE ENGINEER & HIS APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED. ANY UNAUTHORISED VARIATION FROM THE DESIGN MAY INVALIDATE ANY CERTIFICATION. IF IN DOUBT CONTACT THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK TO DISCUSS AND ENSURE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE DESIGN INTENT. Description By Date Tel: 01786 649689 DRAWING STATUS: Mr. J. Marshall Machin Dunn & MacFarlane Limited Proposed Garage/Storeage Shed At The Forecourt, Cummingstown, Lossiemouth Proposed SW Drainage Layout & Details 22.5227 100 As Shown KD 13.12.22 FOR INFORMATION Page 73
Page 74
Page 74
Page 75
Existing Side Elevation 1:100 Existing Front Elevation 1:100 Existing Side Elevation 1:100 Existing Rear Elevation 1:100 GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Firth View House West End Curlew B9040 TO HOPEMAN TO BURGHEAD 210 3 4 5 10 20 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 Existing Ground Floor Plan 1:50 Bedroom W. St.W. En-Suite WC St. Hall Lounge Dining Kitchen Utility Garage Family 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Notes 1. The copyright of this drawings and it's content is reserved by machin dunn + macfarlane and is protected by the Copyrights Acts (Section 47, 1988). This material can be used for consultation purposes only and it is issued with the caveat that it is not copied or disclosed to any third party, either wholly or in part, without the written permission of machin dunn + macfarlane. 2. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to ordering materials 3. Drawings should be read in conjunction with all structural and services engineer drawings and specifications Revisions Date Existing Site Plan 1:500 PROJECT DRAWING TITLE CLIENT SCALE DRG NO. DATE STATUS PLANNING APPLICATION Prop. Erection of Double Garage & Internal Alterations at 'The Forecourt', Cummingston Existing Ground Floor Plan, Elevations and Roof Plan Mr J. Marshall As Noted @ A1 16th April 2024 2273B/P/1.02 Existing Site Plan 1:500 Page 75
Page 76
Page 76
Page 77
Proposed Materials: 1 - Precast Stone outer leaf to match existing 2 - Upvc windows to match existing (RAL 7016) 3 - Render wall finish to match existing Proposed Side Elevation 1:100 Proposed Front Elevation 1:100 Proposed Side Elevation 1:100 Proposed Rear Elevation 1:100 GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL GFL 1750mm min. 10,000mm2 pv New Upvc window and cill, all to match existing Build up to new cill level, precast stone to match dwelling, keyed in with existing. Mechanical Extract 10,000mm2Mechanical Extract 10,000mm2 Mechanical Extract Existing A.S.H.P Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing SVP Existing SVP 1 2 2 Existing lintols to be retained New Upvc window and cill, all to match existing Build up to new cill level, render on concrete block to match, keyed in with existing. 12,000mm2 pv 2 3 EW 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 St. Hall Lounge Dining Kitchen Utility Family Utility Store Acc. Shower Bedroom Dressing En-S' **Existing A.S.H.P** Proposed Ground Floor Plan 1:50 **Assumed line of Existing Drainage Run** 1800 2000 **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing RWP** **Existing SVP****Existing SVP** Existing I.C Existing Pumping Station **Assumed line of Existing Drainage Run** **Existing Site Boundary** **Existing Site Boundary** **Existing Site Boundary** 210 3 4 5 10 20 Westerley Firth View B9040 2000 **Proposed surface water drainage from Garage to connect into new 5m long x 1m wide x 0.9m deep soakaway to engineers detailed design and specification** Rodding Eye **100mm dia UPVC pipe laid at a 1:60 gradient** I.C. ** All proposed drainage to connect into exisiting drainage run serving existing dwelling. - Existing drainage is assumed SEPERATE** **Exact location of all existing drainage to be confirmed on site by contractor**Lintol over all walls where drains pass below Durgo to be boxed in plywood and have access at base for cleaning and testing All drainage to be connected into Durgo via separate connections 100mm dia. Durgo WC - 100mm dia. Shower - 40mm dia. whb - 40mm dia. **Air-admittance valves to be fully installed in accordance with manufacturers literature. As AAV is boxed-in, enclosure to be ventilated by means of a grille providing 2500mm2 free air space to provide a continuous flow of air** **Existing pumping station** 100mm dia UPVC pipe laid at a 1:60 gradient Existing I.C. Drainage from proposed shower room to connect into existing I.C via slow radius bend Existing RWP Existing RWPExisting RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Existing RWP Rodding Eye Rodding Eye Rodding Eye**100mm dia UPVC pipe laid at a 1:60 gradient** 5m min. 5m min. 100mm dia. Durgo Existing SVP w.c.-100mm dia, whb-32mm dia, bath - 40mm dia, shower - 40mm dia. St. **Dashed RED line denotes previous boundary of curtilage, prior to approval of Planning Consent ref: 23/02133/APP Notes 1. The copyright of this drawings and it's content is reserved by machin dunn + macfarlane and is protected by the Copyrights Acts (Section 47, 1988). This material can be used for consultation purposes only and it is issued with the caveat that it is not copied or disclosed to any third party, either wholly or in part, without the written permission of machin dunn + macfarlane. 2. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to ordering materials 3. Drawings should be read in conjunction with all structural and services engineer drawings and specifications Revisions Date PROJECT DRAWING TITLE CLIENT SCALE DRG NO. DATE STATUS PLANNING APPLICATION Prop. Erection of Double Garage & Internal Alterations at 'The Forecourt', Cummingston Proposed Dwelling Floor Plan and Elevations Mr J. Marshall As Noted @ A1 16th April 2024 2273B/P/1.03 A Proposed Site Plan 1:200 Revision A - Additional information added to address comments from Planning Officer 07/08/2024 Page 77
Page 78
Page 78
Page 79
Proposed Front (South) Elevation 1:100Proposed Side (West) Elevation 1:100 Proposed Side (East) Elevation 1:100 Proposed Rear (North) Elevation 1:100 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 2500 2500 5353 40° 5353 2500 2500 40° 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Firth View House West End Curlew B9040 TO HOPEMAN TO BURGHEAD 210 3 4 5 10 20 30 Garage 6160 7160 7160 6160 5740 6740 5740 6740 Proposed Garage Floor Plan 1:50 0 1 2 3 4 5 Proposed Materials: **All finishes to match existing dwelling house** 1 - Dry Dash Render (Cream). 2 - Precast Stone Gable and Base Course (Grey Buff). 3 - Composite Cladding (Grey/Brown). 4 - Roller Garage Door (Grey). 5 - Upvc Windows & Doors (Grey). 6 - Upvc Gutters & Fascias (Grey). 7 - Concrete Tile Roof Covering (Grey). 210 3 4 5 10 20 30 Firth View House West End Curlew B9040 TO HOPEMAN TO BURGHEAD 2000 Firth View B9040 2000 **Dashed RED line denotes previous boundary of curtilage, prior to approval of Planning Consent ref: 23/02133/APP 210 3 4 5 10 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Notes 1. The copyright of this drawings and it's content is reserved by machin dunn + macfarlane and is protected by the Copyrights Acts (Section 47, 1988). This material can be used for consultation purposes only and it is issued with the caveat that it is not copied or disclosed to any third party, either wholly or in part, without the written permission of machin dunn + macfarlane. 2. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to ordering materials 3. Drawings should be read in conjunction with all structural and services engineer drawings and specifications Revisions Date Existing Site Plan 1:500 PROJECT DRAWING TITLE CLIENT SCALE DRG NO. DATE STATUS PLANNING APPLICATION Prop. Erection of Double Garage & Internal Alterations at 'The Forecourt', Cummingston Proposed Garage Floor Plan, Elev's, Roof and Site Plans Mr J. Marshall As Noted @ A1 16th April 2024 2273B/P/1.04 A Proposed Site Plan 1:500 Proposed Site Plan 1:200 Existing Streetscape Elevations 1:100 Proposed Streetscape Elevations 1:100 Revision A - Additional information added to address comments from Planning Officer 07/08/2024 Page 79
Page 80
Page 80
Page 81
Soakaway Design 2 Project Details Project Title: Project Number: Designer: Global Variables Trench Soakaway Precast Concrete Ring Soakaway Impermeable Area :- Storm Duration :- Void Ratio (Trench Soakaway) :- Soil Infiltration Rate :- Rainfall :- Volumetric Runoff Coeff :- Length = Depth = Width = Ring Size (mm) Depth (metres) Half Empty Time (hours) 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 * Ring soakaways are deemed to have failed if their Depth is greater than 4 metres. The Forecourt, Cummingstown 5227 KD 117 m3 60 minutes 0.3 1.00 2.03E-5 m/sec 0.016 metres 5 metres 0.9 metres0.94 metres Half empty time = 4.28 hours C:\Users\Dir2\DRGCS\DRGCS Sharepoint Site - Documents\Projects\2022 - (4764 -\22.5227 The Forecourt, Cummingstown - Ma 14/12/2022 2.53 1.89 1.47 1.18 0.96 0.68 0.50 0.39 0.31 3.07 3.59 4.10 4.61 5.13 6.15 7.18 8.21 9.23 www.webcomsystems.co.uk 2 Note - 42% Allowance made for Climate Change - Refer - As per the guidance outlined in the CIRIA C753 SuDS Manual 2015, SEPA Document “Climate Change allowances for flood risk assessment in land use” (version 2 March 2022), the developments surface water drainage network is designed to include 42% for climate change. Refer- https://scottishepa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2ddf84e295334f6b93bd0dbbb9ad7417 Page 81
Page 82
Page 82