Agenda Document Pack - Moray Local Review Body - 13/03/2025
Moray Council · 13 March 2025
Back to Moray Local Review Body — 13 March 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 March 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 March 2025 at 09:30. BUSINESS 1 Sederunt 2 Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 3 Minute of meeting dated 13 February 2025 5 - 6 4 LR309 - Ward 2 - Keith and Cullen Planning Application 24/00996/APP – Replacement of existing single glaze wooden framed windows and door with double/ triple glaze PVC windows at 157 Mid Street Keith Moray AB55 5BJ for Fit Feet Footcare 7 - 32 5 LR310 - Ward 4 - Fochabers Lhanbryde Planning Application 24/01517/APP – Change of use of woodland to garden ground and erect a domestic garage/workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Fochabers, Moray 33 - 138 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 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, 13 February 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 Sonya Warren, Councillor Ben Williams APOLOGIES Councillor Drake van der Horn ALSO PRESENT Councillor Tracy Colyer IN ATTENDANCE Mr A Miller, Acting Principal Planning Officer; Ms E Mitchell, Senior Planning Officer; Mr S Hoath, Senior Solicitor; and Mrs L Rowan, Committee Services Officer as Clerk to the Committee 1 Chair Councillor 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 held 16 January 2025 The Minute of the meeting dated 16 January 2024 was submitted and approved. 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 Item 3 Page 5
Page 6
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 proposals are contrary to the Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) (2020) and National Planning Framework (NPF) 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. 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, both the Legal and Planning Advisers advised that they 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. Following clarification from the Planning Adviser in relation a query that was raised regarding existing and proposed boundaries relating to the proposal, the MLRB unanimously agreed that it had sufficient information to determine the case. Councillor Cameron, having visited the site and considered the case in detail, commended the owner of the property for the work they had undertaken which had resulted in a lovely property, however agreed with the view of the Appointed Officer and 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 24/00905/APP as the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policies 4 (Natural Places) and 16 (Quality Homes) and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 (Development Principles), EP6 (Settlement Boundaries) and EP3 (Special Landscape Areas). There being no-one otherwise minded, the MLRB unanimously agreed to refuse the appeal and uphold the original decision of the Appointed Officer to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 24/00905/APP as the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policies 4 (Natural Places) and 16 (Quality Homes) and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 (Development Principles), EP6 (Settlement Boundaries) and EP3 (Special Landscape Areas). Page 6
Page 7
MORAY LOCAL REVIEW BODY 13 MARCH 2024 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FOR CASE No LR309 Ward 2 – Keith and Cullen Planning Application 24/00996/APP – Replacement of existing single glaze wooden framed windows and door with double/ triple glaze PVC windows at 157 Mid Street Keith Moray AB55 5BJ for Fit Feet Footcare Planning permission was refused under the Statutory Scheme of Delegation by the Appointed Officer on 21 November 2024 on the grounds that: The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 and Moray Local Development Plan (2020) and for the following reasons: 1. The proposed replacement windows and door do not match the style, material or intricate detail of the existing original timber windows. The windows and door would result in a detrimental impact on the appearance and historic interest of the property and do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Keith Mid Street Conservation Area. Therefore the proposals would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 7 and MLDP2020 Policy EP9. 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 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
Offices Mid Street Flats Car Park Centre Club El Sub Sta 146.7m 147.8m 145.3m 150.7m Garage 148.4m 148.2m 1 to 5 6 to 10 UNION STREET AR to 187 to 181 11 To 14TCB PC 11 118 116 12c 114b 153c 158c 5 6 123 136 132 122a 127 160 99a 152 154 140 170 25 12 120 159 146 140a 148 150 166 135 184 12d 145 163 99 172 104 132a 97 131a 131 176 124 147 10 178a 164 165 144 188 183 158 168 12b 9 130 161 169 142a 133 137 142 99b 157 162 103 123a 186 173 175174 126 178 158b 133b 93 153 171 21 193 189 151 177 125 15 13 INSTITUTE LANE Office RAILWAY LANE LEGION LANE RAILWAY LANE WEST BANKERS LANE WEST BANKERS LANE COOPERS LANE WEST WEAVERS LANE COOPERS LANE 179 136a PO 132 124 146 133 Car Park Car Park 154 136 158 140 120 Car Park 6 130 Location plan for Planning Application Reference Number : 24/00996/APP © Crown copyright [and database rights] 2025 OS AC0000806936 Moray Council. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. Third party rights to enforce the terms of this licence shall be reserved to OS. I 1:1,000 @ A4 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
REPORT OF HANDLING Ref No: 24/00996/APP Officer: Shaya Anderson Proposal Description/ Address Replacement of existing single glaze wooden framed windows and door with double/ triple glaze PVC windows at 157 Mid Street Keith Moray AB55 5BJ Date: 20.11.2024 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 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY Policies Dep Any Comments (or refer to Observations below) NPF1 - Tackling the Climate N NPF2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation N NPF3 - Biodiversity N NPF5 - Soils N NPF7 - Historic assets and places Y NPF14 - Design, quality and place Y EP9 Conservation Areas Y DP1 Development Principles Y 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): Page 13
Page 14
Page 2 of 4 OBSERVATIONS – ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL Legislation Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended required applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, namely the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2020 unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main planning issues are considered below: Site The site is located at 157 Mid Street Keith, and is a commercial retail premises located within Keith Mid Street Conservation Area. There are neighbouring shops on either side of the property, with a residential flat on the first floor. Proposal This application seeks permission for replacement shop front windows and access door. The existing windows are original traditional timber, with intricate timber detailing adorning the top corners of each pane of single glazing. The windows are fixed and do not open and measure approx. 2m in height. The existing timber access door is 1.2m wide and is split into two, each with a pane of single glazing. Both the windows and doors have been painted a mint green colour. The proposed windows are to be fixed, double glazed uPVC, and the proposed door is to be a uPVC single door with a full-length pane of glass to the left side. The proposed alterations do not replicate the existing historical shopfront and in particular would result in the loss of the intricate timber detailing. Policy Assessment Siting and Design (NPF4-7, NPF4-14, MLDP 2020 DP1, EP9, Moray Windows and Doors Guidance, Keith Conservation Area Character Appraisal) Moray Local Development Plan Policy DP1 and NPF4 Policy 14 requires scale, density and character of development to be appropriate to the surrounding area, be integrated to the surrounding area, conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylight or overbearing loss of amenity. Alterations and extensions must be compatible with the character of the existing building in terms of design, form, choice of materials and positioning. The site is within the Keith Mid Street Conservation Area. NPF4 Policy 7 Historic Assets and Places and MLDP2020 Policy EP9 Conservation Areas and require all development within a conservation area to preserve and enhance the established traditional appearance of the area in terms of scale, height, massing, colour, materials, and siting; this typically requires the use of traditional materials and styles but contemporary designs may be acceptable if the material finishes and design respect the architectural authenticity of the building and character of the conservation area. The Moray Council Replacement Windows and Door Guidance sets out the importance of retaining original windows and doors as a legitimate way of preserving both the historic appearance, fabric and therefore the character of historic buildings both individually and in the wider streetscape. It highlights that replacement will only be approved where there is no alternative. The guidance also goes on to state that in all instances the proposed replacements will be required to match the originals in materials, design and opening method expressly stating that the use of non-traditional materials such as uPVC will not be acceptable on principal elevations within a conservation area. The principal test will be the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Page 14
Page 15
Page 3 of 4 Finally, the Keith Conservation Area Appraisal (October 2010) states that "Shopfronts make an important contribution to the character of Keith and several traditional shopfronts survive without major changes. However, in many places shopfronts, or their constituent parts, have been replaced by modern materials and features." In this case, the proposed replacement windows and door do not match the style or material of the existing timber windows. The replacement of the windows would also result in the loss of the unique timber carved detailing adoring the upper corners of each windowpane, resulting in the loss of historic character and material from 157 Mid Street, thus impacting the character of the surrounding conservation area. The existing windows appear to be in good condition, with no signs of rot, and no information has accompanied this application to support the requirement for replacement windows in terms of the window condition. 157 Mid Street Keith is one of the last few remaining shop fronts that boasts an untouched traditional frontage. The windows and door along with the mosaic tile doorway contribute considerably to the character of Mid Street, and the addition of bulky uPVC windows which do not replicate the detailing, character or material of the originals will have a detrimental impact on the appearance and historic interest of the property. Therefore, the proposals would fail to comply with NPF4 Policies 7 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP9 which require that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is preserved and enhanced and the application will be refused. Climate Change, Biodiversity and Soils (NPF4-1, NPF4-2, NPF4-3 and NPF4-5) The proposals are of a scale and nature which is considered to have a minimal impact in terms of climate change and soil disturbance, and it is not necessary to seek formal biodiversity enhancement on a proposal of this scale and therefore the proposal is deemed to comply with NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5. This however would not override the aforementioned objections with regard to the failure of the application to comply with NPF4 Policy 7 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP9 and as such the application will be refused. Conclusion In this case the proposed replacement windows do not match the style, material or detailing of the existing traditional and historic windows. Replacing the windows would result in the loss of historic character and material from the property and the Keith Mid Street Conservation Area. This means that the replacement windows are contrary to national and local provisions to preserve and enhance the traditional character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The application will therefore be refused. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT Keith Mid Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal & Action Plan HISTORY Reference No. Description Decision Date Of Decision Page 15
Page 16
Page 4 of 4 ADVERT Advert Fee paid? Yes Local Newspaper Reason for Advert Date of expiry Banffshire Advertiser and Herald Planning application affecting LB/CA 23/09/24 PINS Planning application affecting LB/CA 23/09/24 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? NO Summary of main issues raised in each statement/assessment/report Document Name: Main Issues: 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 16
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
(Page 1 of 2) Ref: 24/00996/APP MORAY COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997, as amended REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION [Keith And Cullen] Application for Planning Permission TO 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:- Replacement of existing single glaze wooden framed windows and door with double/ triple glaze PVC windows at 157 Mid Street Keith Moray AB55 5BJ and for the reason(s) set out in the attached schedule. Date of Notice: 21 November 2024 HEAD OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Economy, Environment and Finance Moray Council Council Office High Street ELGIN Moray IV30 1BX Page 19
Page 20
(Page 2 of 2) Ref: 24/00996/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 National Planning Framework 4 and Moray Local Development Plan (2020) and for the following reasons: 1. The proposed replacement windows and door do not match the style, material or intricate detail of the existing original timber windows. The windows and door would result in a detrimental impact on the appearance and historic interest of the property and do not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Keith Mid Street Conservation Area. Therefore the proposals would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 7 and MLDP2020 Policy EP9. LIST OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT The following plans and drawings form part of the decision:- Reference Version Title 02 Proposed elevation BNF12563 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 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 20
Page 21
APPENDIX 2 NOTICE OF REVIEW, GROUNDS FOR REVIEW & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
24/00996/APP Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
Page 28
Page 29
Page 29
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
Page 31
Page 32
Page 32
Page 33
MORAY LOCAL REVIEW BODY 13 MARCH 2024 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FOR CASE No LR310 Ward 4 – Fochabers and Lhanbryde Planning Application 24/01517/APP – Change of use of woodland to garden ground and erect a domestic garage/workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Fochabers, Moray Planning permission was refused under the Statutory Scheme of Delegation by the Appointed Officer on 15 January 2025 on the grounds that: The proposals are contrary to National Planning Framework 4 and Moray Local Development Plan (2020) for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change of use an area of Ancient Woodland to domestic garden ground is unacceptable as it would result in the loss of an area of designated Ancient Woodland which is not supported by NPF4 Policy 6. 2. The proposed garage would result in the removal of healthy trees from the site which would fail to comply with MLDP 2020 Policy EP7 which only permits the removal of healthy trees where it is technically unfeasible to retain these. 3. The garage is considered an unacceptable scale and design for the prominent roadside location and would not be read alongside the main dwellinghouse which is set on the opposite side of an existing private access road, resulting in a detrimental impact on the rural wooded character of the area. The garage would contain a large box dormer which is not permitted by policy DP1. The proposals would also prejudice the special qualities of the Special Landscape Area and would therefore fail to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 14, 6 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP3. 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 5 Page 33
Page 34
Page 34
Page 35
Thunder Slack Bow Bridge Cara Villa Drain Issues 17.9m 19.1m 19.2m Bradan Orach Speyview Newton Oak Location plan for Planning Application Reference Number : 24/01517/APP © Crown copyright [and database rights] 2025 OS AC0000806936 Moray Council. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. Third party rights to enforce the terms of this licence shall be reserved to OS. I 1:2,500 @ A4 Page 35
Page 36
Page 36
Page 37
APPENDIX 1 DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED OR PREPARED BY THE APPOINTED OFFICER Page 37
Page 38
Page 38
Page 39
Outlook 100687032-003 has been received From noreply@scot.gov.uk <noreply@scot.gov.uk> Date Thu 03/10/2024 13:50 To 100687032-003 has been received ePlanning Scotland Reference: 100687032-003 Dear Your application/appeal has been successfully submitted using ePlanning.scot. Please be aware that your planning application will be deleted from our database (Not the Council's database) 90 days after submission so that you may wish to save a copy for your own records. Your online reference number is 100687032-003, which you should keep a note of for your own records. Your application will now be sent to Moray Council who is responsible for processing and determining your application. If you need to contact the authority directly, please use the contact details below. Please note that if this submission relates to an Appeal, and you have selected this in your application, it will be forwarded to both the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) and your planning authority. In this instance the DPEA will be responsible for processing and determining your appeal. You will be contacted in due course by either your planning authority or the DPEA regarding your application. Submission Details Online Reference 100687032-003 Title Change of use of woodland to garden. Authority Name Moray Council Authority Address The Moray Council Council Office High Street Elgin IV30 1BX Page 39
Page 40
Authority Telephone 0300 1234561 Authority Fax Authority Email Address development.control@moray.gov.uk Agent Name Applicant Name Location Date Submitted 03/10/2024 Location Plan Name Type Size Attachments Name Type Size Garage Workshop Plan Attached 1.4 Mb Fees There was no fee for this submission. General Data Protection Regulation states in Article 5(1)(e) that “Personal data shall be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods insofar as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) subject to implementation of the appropriate technical and organisational measures required by this Regulation in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the data subject (‘storage limitation’)”. This email has been sent from the ePlanning.scot Applications and Appeals System. This e-mail and any attachments are private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited. Please contact the eDevelopment Support Desk via email at eDevelopment@gov.scot immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. All emails and attachments are virus scanned. It is your responsibility to ensure that any onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect your or the onward recipients' systems or data. Please carry out such virus and other such checks as you consider appropriate. Complete our user survey here. Follow us on Twitter @eDevelopmentSG Any personal data that you have provided in using the eDevelopment.scot service will be processed in accordance with Data Protection legislation. Further information is available in our Privacy Notice Page 40
Page 41
Oikos Architectural Ltd Registered in Scotland No. 272963 M r. & M rs. Seely M .D 12.02.24 External Fire D oor Set (w ith Push Bar O pening) 2134x915m m 2134x915m m External Fire Door Set (with Push Bar Opening) Valuted Ceiling Line of Valuted Ceiling 5000 5000 Roller Shutter Door Roller Shutter Door A:A B:B Proposed Ground Floor Plan Scale: 1:100 20000 10000 Raised Plat Approx. 187m 2 Landing New Stairs: 19 No. Risers 300m m going 200m m rise Up Store1000 Covered Lorry Port 3500 8660 Proposed South Elevation Scale: 1:100 Dorm er 2150 Proposed W est Elevation Scale: 1:100 Covered Lorry Port 7505 Proposed East Elevation Scale: 1:100 3200 3200 Roller Entry Door Roller Entry Door Dorm er 2405 Covered Lorry Port 3900 Proposed North Elevation Scale: 1:100 Dorm er 3200 3545 Section A:A Scale: 1:50 M ezzanine 2400220 215 3200 6625 Section B:B Scale: 1:50 1. UPVC, grey doors. 2. Steel Roller shutter vehicle doors 3. Steadm ans Steel Profile Roof 4. Rendered 215m m blockwork walls * All rainwater goods to be Steadm an's steel. Speyview Cara Villa 862950 863000 External Fire Door Set (with Push Bar Opening) 2134x915mm 2134x915mm E x t e r n a l F i r e D o o r S e t ( w i t h P u s h B a r O p e n i n g ) Site Plan Scale: 1:500 N Proposed Garage To Garmouth To Newton New RW Soakaway Site approx 7,269m 2 Speyview Cara Villa Drain 334000 862950 863000 863050 334050 Location Plan Scale: 1:2500 N To Garmouth To Newton SITE REFERRED TO IN APPLICATION Area approx 7,269m 2 Location Plan NTS 26.02.24 Client Am endm ents A Page 41
Page 42
Page 42
Page 43
Oikos Architectural Ltd Registered in Scotland No. 272963 Valuted Ceiling Line of Valuted Ceiling A:A B:B Proposed First Floor Plan Scale: 1:100 20000 10000 Approx. 96m 2 Landing New Stairs: 19 No. Risers 300m m going 200m m rise Covered Lorry Port Down 2630 2m head height Coom b Line Dorm er 11460 W orkshop & Store Gazed Balustrade Bulkhead M r. & M rs. Seely M .D 27.06.24 Page 43
Page 44
Page 44
Page 45
Oikos Architectural Ltd Registered in Scotland No. 272963 Speyview Cara Villa 862950 863000 Site Plan Scale: 1:500 N To Garmouth To Newton Area Proposed for change of use to garden ground Approx 756m 2 Speyview Cara Villa Drain 334000 862950 863000 863050 334050 Location Plan Scale: 1:2500 N To Garmouth To Newton SITE REFERRED TO IN APPLICATION Area approx 7,269m 2 Location Plan NTS M r. & M rs. Seely M .D 02.10.24 Page 45
Page 46
Page 46
Page 47
1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT Change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erection of a domestic garage workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Proposal Ref: 100687032-001 1. INTRODUCTION This proposal relates to the change of use of up to 930 m² (0.09 hectares) of woodland to garden ground to permit the erection of a domestic garage workshop within the grounds of Beulah, Garmouth, an existing house in Morayshire. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Having retired last year my wife and I moved back to Moray after a period of absence due to work commitments. Whilst living away I realised a life-long ambition to participate in motorsport, my retirement aspiration being to continue this hobby. As a privateer I do all the work on the car and support vehicles myself and therefore need a suitable garage workshop. 2.2 We purchased Beulah (formerly Cara Villa) for many reasons, one being that it provides an ideal location to site a garage workshop. A major consideration for the selection of the site is that, being remote from the house and next to the road, the garage could be retained should we need to downsize at some point. Without this flexibility I would have to restart the process of finding somewhere to keep and work on my race car if we were forced to move due to age/health, thereby incurring additional expense as well as facing the logistical problem of where to keep the equipment during the transition. Not wishing to go into personal detail, my wife is the most likely of the two of us to need to downsize in the future. 2.3 A planning application was submitted on my behalf by a local architectural company in March this year (online reference number 100663503-001) but was returned due to it failing to address the need for a change of use of the ground in question from woodland to garden. This application is therefore in response to Moray Council’s instruction. Accompanying information provided by the Council was that an application would not be likely to receive a positive recommendation given that the proposed site is on ancient woodland, a fact we were unaware of when we bought the property. 2.4 When purchasing the house in June 2023 there was nothing to suggest to us that the site’s use would be limited. As the attached photos show it has the appearance of waste ground. All the mature trees had been felled as a consequence of Storm Arwen in 2021, information that came to light once we had acquired the property. (A felling order had been granted by Scottish Forestry under permission FPA-8678, copy attached, as well as a restocking order). To further enhance our perception that we would be able to use the proposed site for a garage, we were informed that planning permission had been granted for the erection of a house on Page 47
Page 48
2 the ground immediately adjoining to the north (planning application 20/00455/APP dated 10 June 2020 refers) as well as noting the existence of three other recently built houses in close proximity. Given the demand for property in the area and knowing that other parties were interested in purchasing Beulah there simply wasn’t the luxury of time to research the possibility of building a garage on this site any further; any additional delay would have jeopardised the opportunity to buy. In good faith we had gathered as much evidence as possible to make us believe the proposed site would be viable. 3. SITE LOCATION 3.1 The plot on which Beulah sits extends to circa 6,070 m², (0.607 hectares) encompassing the house, an access road to a neighbouring house Speyview, garden grounds, woodland and the specific woodland site relating to this application with an area of approximately 930 m². 3.2 The site is accessible via an established entrance off the minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road. 3.3 The area applied for a change of use from woodland to garden excludes the legal right of access track leading to Speyview. 3.4 Beulah is one of 4 existing houses within a small rural grouping. 3.5 This application relates to an addition to an existing dwelling, not a new development on a different plot. 4. POLICY COMPLIANCE 4.1 The site is located outside the Speyside flood risk area. 4.2 The site is registered on the National Forest Inventory (NFI) as ancient semi-natural woodland and occupies an area of approximately 930 m² (0.093 hectares). Following Storm Arwen in November 2021, existing trees damaged by the winds were felled under permission FPA-8678. The site was restocked with around 30 silver birch and a small number of Scots pine, holly and beech. After four years growth, these trees are not yet established and could readily be transplanted. 4.3 As the photos below illustrate, the proposed site is visually unattractive giving the appearance of waste ground. The minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road runs parallel to the line of gorse bushes on the left-hand side of the first photo which looks north, the pine trees defining the edge of Lunan Wood on the west side of the road. As mentioned in the introduction to this Supporting Statement, planning permission has been granted for a dwelling house adjacent to the proposed site which is also designated as ancient semi-natural woodland. The location of this would be in the foreground of the red coloured container and house in the photo. Page 48
Page 49
3 4.4 The second photo below looks east and shows the proposed site on the left-hand side of the picture, the driveway leading to Beulah on the right-hand side of the picture, the access road to Speyview (defined by the fence and posts) which is excluded from the application and an established area of woodland in the centre of the shot that is referred to in the Tree Survey. This woodland is close enough to the site to be included in the Survey but would not be affected. Just out of the picture on the right-hand side (south) is further woodland referred to in the Survey. Page 49
Page 50
4 4.4 With reference to the Scottish Government National Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 (b), and Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP2020), Policy EP7, this proposal would not result in the loss of ancient and veteran trees, or have an adverse impact on their ecological condition. There would be no adverse impact on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value, or identified for protection in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy. In addition no fragmenting or severing of woodland habitats would result. 4.5 A Tree Survey carried out on 24 January 2024 by Mr Angus Dixon, Groves Forestry, accompanies this application. Compensatory replanting has been detailed in this Survey in accordance with EP7 (e). The planting would be located at Nether Brown Muir, a site on the north side of Brown Muir Hill, above Millbuies. As stated above in paragraph 4.2, existing saplings would be transplanted at the new site such that there would be no loss of existing trees. In addition twice the area of woodland would be created. Should this amount of compensatory replanting be judged insufficient I would consider increasing it to whatever Moray Council deemed appropriate. Of note, the grassland at Millbuies, when planted with native trees, will acquire over the next 40 years similar woodland soil features of the site at Beulah. This is a comparative period of time it would take the saplings on the existing site at Beulah to mature. Therefore, nothing would be lost by permitting the ground at Beulah to be changed to garden. On the contrary, there would be an increase in the area of semi-natural woodland. Page 50
Page 51
5 4.6 Mr Dixon, author of the Tree Survey, consulted with Scottish Forestry with respect to the change of use of land and whether there was any opposition from their perspective to the proposed site being used as described. Scottish Forestry had no objection to the proposal. 4.7 Whilst the site is within Moray Council’s designated Special Landscape Area (SLA) Lower Spey and Gordon Castle, the garage workshop’s position adheres to this policy as far as possible. The garage would be situated just inside the western boundary which is defined by the minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road outside the drive. The garage workshop would thus be virtually invisible from the River Spey given the cover provided by both the house and the trees on the east side of the proposed site. 4.8 Use of this site to position the garage workshop would limit the impact on immediate neighbours who have supported the proposal. (Attached letter from Mr & Mrs N. Stevens refers). 4.9 The proposed garage workshop has been sympathetically designed to sit comfortably within the local character of surrounding properties and reflects the size and scale of local agricultural buildings. Having said that, the attached plans for the design of the building are purely representative; I would willingly cooperate with the Council to ensure the building fits in with the surrounds to their satisfaction. 4.10 The proposed garage workshop measures 10m x 20m, giving a footprint of only 200m². Whilst this application is to ideally change the use of woodland to garden for the entire site of 930 m², should it be more acceptable to the Council the requested area can be reduced sufficiently to accommodate the requested building leaving the remainder of the site untouched. 4.11 By permitting the change of use of the ground from woodland to garden for the erection of a garage workshop the following public benefits would be realised: 4.11.1.1 A larger area of woodland would be generated at no cost to Moray Council. It is proposed that double the area of woodland is created but should this be judged insufficient I would consider any proposal that the Council deems appropriate. The newly planted woodland would in time acquire all the woodland soil features of the existing site. 4.11.1.2 The impact on the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle SLA would be minimised compared to the alternative of positioning the garage workshop within the existing ground already designated as garden. 4.11.1.3 Neighbours would benefit from the garage being remotely positioned. It would be out of sight, not obstruct their view or block sunlight. A letter from supporting the proposed siting of the garage is attached. Page 51
Page 52
6 4.11.1.4 Morayshire would be represented at motorsport events. Given the long distances involved travelling to and from major race circuits in the UK there are few competitors representing Scotland and even less, if any, from Morayshire. My continued participation in motorsport would be consistent with Priority 1, Section VI, VII & VIII of Moray Council’s Physical Activity, Sport and Health Strategy which states that the precedence is to: vi. Promote and host local, regional, national and international sporting events with all key partners to encourage tourism and showcase what Moray has to offer. vii. Recognise and celebrate the contribution that sport and physical activity provides within Moray and support the need that physical activity and sporting opportunities are affordable and attractive to all our residents. viii. Raise the profile of sport and physical activity within Moray. SUMMARY 5.1 My application for the change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erection of a domestic garage workshop represents a retirement ambition of continued participation in motorsport. Without this facility it would be economically unviable to continue. The application is flexible and would seek to address any objection the Council may have to it. 5.2 The following summarises the case for why a change of use would not impact the current state of ancient semi-natural woodland negatively. 5.2.1 The area of ground in question is negligible: ideally 930m² but potentially less than 300 m². 5.2.2 There are no mature trees on the site; no felling is required. 5.2.3 Existing saplings would be transplanted therefore no trees would be lost. 5.2.4 The ground of the new site would in time acquire all the woodland soil features of the existing site. 5.2.5 The proposed site is within an existing property; it is not a new development. 5.3 With reference to the Scottish Government National Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 (c), and Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP2020), Policy EP7, and the need Page 52
Page 53
7 for the application to be in the interest of the public, the following benefits would be realised should the request be granted: • A larger area of woodland would be generated at no cost to Moray Council. • The impact on the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle SLA would be minimised. • It is in my neighbours’ best interest that the garage is remotely located. • Morayshire would be represented at motorsport events consistent with Moray Council’s Sports Plan. Applicant Page 53
Page 54
Page 54
Page 55
1 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING STATEMENT 27 November 2024 Change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erection of a domestic garage workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Proposal Ref: 100687032-001 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Moray Council helpfully pre-warned me that the above application would be rejected for 2 reasons: a. ANCIENT WOODLAND. The application site is an area of designated Ancient Woodland. It was not part of the original house plot and as such the application seeks to change the use of the ground to domestic garden ground. Both National Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP7 do not support development which would result in the loss of Ancient Woodland. Ancient Woodland comprises not only trees but the ground vegetation and soils in which trees sit. The proposal to change the use of the woodland to garden ground would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 6 and policy EP7 as it would result in the permanent loss of land identified as woodland under the Ancient Woodland Inventory. b. PROPOSED GARAGE DESIGN. The proposed garage/workshop is considered to be out of keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. The site is remote to the dwelling (separated by an access track) and would not easily integrate into the site and surrounding area given its height, bulk and location proposed. 1.2. I am appealing this decision and have supplied this Additional Supporting Statement in response to the above points. 2. ANCIENT WOODLAND 2.1. I accept the fact that the application site is within a designated area of Ancient Woodland and that the proposal contravenes both National Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP7. Indeed I acknowledged and addressed this fact in my original Supporting Statement. 2.2. If a site visit is not part of the appeal process I ask that the photographs attached to the original Supporting Statement are referenced since they graphically illustrate the following points. 2.2.3. The designation of Ancient Woodland assigned to this particular site gives a misleading impression. It is not typical or representative of what one would consider Ancient Woodland to be; there is only one beech tree which would be unaffected by the construction of the garage/workshop. Please refer to the Tree Survey that was supplied with the application. 2.2.4. An area of Ancient Woodland is delineated by a perimeter within which there is no differentiation between varying sections of ground or whether trees are present or not. The Page 55
Page 56
2 plot for Beulah is contained within a 681.19 ha area of Ancient Woodland called Sleepieshill. This area does not distinguish between roads, garden, hedgerows, buildings or genuine Ancient Woodland. It is true to say therefore that not every part of it contains Ancient Woodland. According to arborist Mr Angus Dixon, BSc, Consultant, Groves Forestry Company, there is nothing irreplaceable or worthy of special preservation that would be irrevocably lost on the proposed site; the trees prior to being felled were plantation Scots pine and the associated vegetation and soil does not contain any unique features. 2.2.5. Strictly speaking this piece of ground is not Ancient Woodland, which is defined as land that has been continuously wooded since at least 1750. It has merely been amalgamated with woodland that does have the attributes to be deemed Ancient Woodland. As an example there is an area containing noteworthy ancient trees along with their associated vegetation and soil on the eastern border of my property. Had my application been situated in an area such as this I would have understood the Council’s refusal of my application but technically it is incorrect to refuse this application on the basis that the ground is Ancient Woodland. 2.2.5. To further support the above information Mr Dixon liaised with Scottish Forestry on my behalf with respect to the change of use of this land to ascertain whether there was any opposition to the proposed site being used as described. Scottish Forestry has no objection to the proposal. 2.3. Compensatory replanting of at least twice the area will be sown with sessile oak, silver birch, hazel, gean, rowan and Scots pine thereby creating a significant area of valuable woodland which would not be generated if this appeal is rejected. Since submitting the initial application a further site has been identified in Garmouth resulting in the woodland being created close to the proposed site if required. This mitigates any perceived loss of woodland and ultimately generates a greater amount. Since there are no established trees on the existing site that would be disturbed the time scale for compensatory replanting to mature is no different to the time it will take for saplings on the proposed site to grow. The net outcome of compensatory replanting would thus enhance Moray’s stock of woodland especially considering rare and exceptional trees would be planted and cultivated. Nothing would be lost by permitting the woodland at Beulah to be changed to garden. On the contrary, there would be an increase in the area of quality Ancient Woodland. 2.4. In addition please bear in mind that the site in question is very small - less than 930 m². Its use would have a miniscule effect on the 6,811,900 m² of Sleepieshill Wood. (Less than 0.014%). PROPOSED GARAGE 3.1. DESIGN. Having submitted the application online I was subsequently contacted by a Moray Council Planning Technical Assistant who required me to submit a plan of the proposed garage. I had deliberately left this detail out because I did not consider it to be relevant to the application at this stage. Having done as requested I made it very clear in my Supporting Statement that the plan was purely representative and that I would willingly cooperate with the Council to ensure the building fits in with the surrounds to the Council’s satisfaction. Page 56
Page 57
3 3.2. Despite the above, Moray Council have stated they will further reject the proposal because they consider the proposed garage plan to be out of keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area and because it does not easily integrate into the site and surrounding area given its height and bulk. 3.3. I wish to reiterate that I would work with the Council to ensure the scale and character of the garage/workshop suitably integrates into the site to meet their requirements. Clearly however, there would be a minimum size needed to ensure the building has sufficient floorspace to store equipment and vehicles, provide suitable space to work on the car as well as afford adequate height to accommodate a car ramp. For example a one car sized garage would be of no use. 3.2. SITE LOCATION. The Council have objected to the application due to the site being remote from the dwelling (separated by an access track). This is exactly why it is so perfect for my requirements and is the only location within my grounds that provides a key advantage. As explained in my original Supporting Statement, a major factor for the selection of the site is that, being remote from the house and next to the road, I could retain the garage should my wife and I need to downsize at some point in the future. Without this flexibility I would have to restart the process of finding somewhere to keep and work on my race car if we were forced to move due to age/health, thereby incurring additional expense as well as facing the logistical problem of where to keep the equipment during the transition. Not wishing to go into personal detail, my wife is the most likely of the two of us to need to downsize in the future which is exactly why this location would be so ideal to enable me to continue participating in motorsport. 4. APPLICATION OF POLICY 4.1. As stated in the introduction I understand that Moray Council are limited by both National and Local Policy. However I feel their application of this policy is harsh given my circumstances. 4.2. Policy is not law, it is a course or principle of action adopted by an organization or individual. It thereby affords the organisation an element of flexibility with respect to its application. From my perspective it is unmerited for policy to be so rigidly enforced that conservation of a patch of ground that contains nothing but decaying ferns, gorse bushes, and a few saplings attracts a higher degree of protection than the welfare and happiness of the individual who owns it and lives there. I have worked hard all my life and am now in a position to fulfil a retirement dream. 4.3. As described in my original Supporting Statement, given the demand for property in the area and knowing that other parties were interested in purchasing the house, I researched the possibility of building a garage on this site as much as time permitted; any additional delay would have jeopardised the opportunity to buy the property. I had no reason to suspect that what appeared to be an ideal location for a garage/workshop had originally been woodland since no trees were present, let alone it carrying a designation of Ancient Woodland, especially as I was made aware planning permission had been granted for a dwelling to be built on adjoining ground. Page 57
Page 58
4 4.4. Should this appeal be rejected it does not simply prevent me from building a garage/workshop, it compromises one of the very reasons I decided to buy the house and associated land thereby destroying my retirement dream; I really do not have any other options. I therefore write a heartfelt appeal to the Local Review Board to consider the circumstances I faced when buying this property, my reasons for doing so and to put themselves in my position. I would like to think the Review Board will make a decision based on the outcome individual members would hope for if they faced similar circumstances rather than dogmatically apply policy as if it were a law that cannot be broken. Thank you for your consideration, Applicant Page 58
Page 59
1 SECOND ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING STATEMENT 30 December 2024 Change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erection of a domestic garage workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Proposal Ref: 100687032-001 1. EXISTING GARAGE 1.1. Further to my Additional Supporting Statement dated 27 November 2024, I would like to add some details on the existing garage facility at Beulah. I feel this would be helpful to illustrate why I am requesting permission to build a suitable garage/workshop facility. 1.2. The current garage at Beulah came with the purchase of the property. It is an old structure that appears to be made up from an old house (Alma Cottage) with an additional area attached at the rear. 1.3. The garage is inadequate for several reasons. Please refer to the attached photographs which illustrate the following points. 1.3.1 First it floods during periods of heavy or persistent rain. This is a major problem since valuable items are being ruined. For example my expensive tools are starting to rust. 1.3.2. Secondly, the roof is not high enough to be able to install a ramp. This is an essential piece of equipment since the engine can only be removed from underneath the race car. 1.3.3. Thirdly the floor space is insufficient. I have a number of pieces of garage equipment that I need to access on a regular basis, numerous spares to store and the need for a ‘clean’ area to service and build items such as engine and gearbox. The attached photographs show how cramped and inadequate the current area is. 1.3.4. Fourthly, the structure is old and rotting. In particular the walls of the original house are made of timber. It will need to be demolished some time in the near future. I have nowhere else to store all my race/garage equipment in the interim. 1.4 I trust the above adds further information as to why this garage/workshop proposal is of such personal importance and is more than just a casual application. Applicant Page 59
Page 60
Page 60
Page 61
Page 61
Page 62
Page 62
Page 63
BEULAH, GARMOUTH FOCHABERS, MORAY IV32 7LE TREE SURVEY & TREE PROTECTION PLAN GROVES FORESTRY REDBRIARS, PLUSCARDEN, ELGIN MORAY, IV30 8UD SEPTEMBER 2024 Page 63
Page 64
1. Introduction owner of Beulah, Garmouth, Fochabers, Moray, IV32 7LE, commissioned Angus Dixon of Groves Forestry Company in January 2024, to survey the trees on and adjacent to the site of a proposed new garage at Beulah, to record the type and condition of the trees situated there and set out proposals for management of the trees during and after the development works. 2. Description of the site The land on which the trees are situated, belongs to , it is located at NJ340630. The land where the garage is to be built has an area of 0.09ha, it was formally part of a Scots pine plantation, planted around 1970. The Scots pine were felled around four years ago and the land was replanted with silver birch and a small number of Scots pine, holly and beech. Adjacent to the proposed garage site on the south and east sides, is woodland extending to around 0.2ha where there are 22 young and mature trees, mainly Scots pine with one each of larch sessile, rowan and sycamore, that are close enough to the site to be included in this tree survey. The 22 trees are aged between around 15 to 50 years. These 22 trees have been individually surveyed and recorded in the schedule, (4) below and are marked on the attached map. The condition of the replanted trees is described in section (5). The woodland is not recorded as being native woodland, but is mapped as ancient semi- natural woodland. The proposed garage site is bounded on the west side by the C class public road, running north from Mosstodloch to Garmouth and on the east side by the conifer plantation of which this area is part. The site is level with an altitude of around 30m. The soil is podzolic brown earth overlaying alluvial deposits over sandstone. The ground vegetation is mostly grass, bracken, woodrush, raspberry, rhododendron, moss, bramble and gorse. 3. Survey Method The trees in area have been surveyed to British Standard 5837 (2012) to record the following data: • Location • Reference number • Height (m) • Stem diameter (cm) • Crown spread in four compass directions (m) Page 64
Page 65
• U.A.B.C. rating where – U = Remove tree A = High value tree B = Medium value tree C = Low value tree 4. Schedule of trees in area adjacent to proposed building site Crown spread (m) Tree No. Species Height (m) DBH (cm) N E S W Age Category Comments 1 BE 6.5 9 3 2 2 2 10 A Crown clearance is 1.5m As this tree grows larger, it may well become a hazard to the new garage. 2 SP 19 31 2 2.5 2 3 50 C Thin crown 3 SP 21 31 2.5 1.5 1 3 50 B 4 SP 22 29 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 50 B 5 SP 21 30 2 3 1 2 50 C Thin crown 6 OK 16 39 4 2 3.5 5 50 B 7 SP 21 37 1.5 2 2 2 50 A 8 LA 21 40 2 3 3 3 50 B 9 SP 20 36 2 1 1.5 2 50 C 10 SP 23 32 1.5 2 1.5 2 50 B 11 SP 22 35 3 2 2.5 2 50 C Tree has old house name sign attached to trunk 12 SP 19 22 1.5 1 1 1 50 C Thin crown, suppressed tree 13 SP 20 31 2 2.5 1.5 1.5 50 B 14 RO 5.5 8/8 2 1 1.5 2 20 C 15 SP 21 42 2 2.5 2 3 50 C 16 SP 19 28 1 1 1 1 50 C/U Tree has a small crown and has blown over towards the east some years ago and is leaning on tree no. 17. Consider felling 17 SP 21 34 2.5 2.5 1.5 2 50 B 18 SYC 9 16 4 3 2 2.5 15 C 19 SP 22 18 0 0 0.5 0.5 50 C Very small crown 20 SP 17 18 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 50 C 21 SP 21 24 0.5 1 1 0 50 C Very small crown 22 SP 21 33 3 3 1 2 50 C Page 65
Page 66
Species Key SP: Scots pine: pinus sylvestris OK: Sessile oak: quercus petraea RO: Rowan: sorbus aucuparia BE: Beech: fagus sylvatica All the trees included in this survey have a life expectancy of at least 40 years. The crown clearance has been recorded for tree no.1, the 10 year old beech, because it is situated within the development area. The other 21 trees are outside the development area and crown clearance is not relevant. Tree numbers 2 to 22 are situated far enough away from the garage that they will not cause the new building any adverse effect, nor will the trees be damaged by the construction of the garage as long as the guidelines set out in section 6 of this report are followed. 5. Young trees on proposed building site The 0.09ha proposed garage site has been planted with around 30 silver birch and a small number of Scots pine, holly and beech. These trees are between 30cm and 100cm high and are in good health. These trees could be transplanted to a new woodland creation site before building work begins. It is proposed that a new woodland, to compensate for the loss of this area of trees, is planted at Nether Brown Muir, a site on the north side of Brown Muir hill, above Millbuies, (grid reference NJ250653) on the property of Mr Brian Sim. A 0.18ha native woodland would have 260 trees planted, species could be as follows: Sessile oak. 60no. Silver birch. 70no. Hazel. 30no. Gean 30no. Rowan. 30no. Scots pine. 20no. Hawthorn. 20no. The trees should be fitted with 1.2m shelters. Maintenance of the trees would be Weeding with herbicide and replacement planting of any failed trees. 6. Tree Protection Plan - care of retained trees on development sites The retained trees to the south and east of the proposed garage site, will be protected by establishing a root protection area at least 5m from the trees, so that the retained trees remain Page 66
Page 67
in good health once work is complete and do not go into decline as a result of damage sustained during the work. The existing boundary fence of the site can form the boundary of a root protection area (RPA) for trees number 2 to 22. Tree number 1, a young beech, situated within the garage site, will need its own root protection area formed by construction of fence at least 3m from the tree stem, to prevent the following activities: • Soil stripping, excavation of trenches laying of services should not be carried out within the root protection area, except where the existing access road cuts through the RPA and here a trench for services should be dug in the middle of the road at the furthest distance from trees growing on either side of the road. • The ground level should not be increased within the RPA by spreading extra soil there. • Storage of heavy materials and equipment must not take place on ground beneath trees within the RPA. • Physical damage to trees from machines etc on site must not occur, nor should cables, scaffolding or other materials be attached to trees. • Trees should not be damaged by fire from burning debris, if this is to take place. Such measures, as outlined above following Moray Council’s guidance for protection of trees on development sites, will prevent damage to the root within the RPA and avoid the sudden or slow decline of the retained trees. Angus Dixon BSc Groves Forestry Co Red Briars, Pluscarden, Elgin, Moray, IV30 8UD 25th January 2024 Page 67
Page 68
Page 68
Page 69
Grampian Conservancy Scottish Forestry Portsoy Road Huntly AB54 4SJ 0300 067 6210 grampian.cons@forestry.gov.scot Conservator: James Nott 23-Dec-2021 Dear Felling Permission Application (Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018) Case Reference: FPA-8678 Property Name: Cara Villa, Garmouth, IV32 7LE - Storm Arwen I refer to your application referenced above and I now enclose the approved Felling Permission. If you are an agent receiving this Felling Permission on behalf of the owner, you are obliged to forward a copy to the owner for their retention. We approved your application on the basis that we consider it has addressed all known issues relating to the application area, and demonstrates sustainable forest management in line with the principles of the UK Forestry Standard Please note the felling approval period associated with this Felling Permission. If felling has not been completed by the end of this period, a new permission will be required. If this application has been approved with conditions, and you do not agree with the stated conditions, then you may appeal our decision for these under section 68 of the Act. For more information please see our website or contact the issuing office. Yours sincerely Admin Officer Page 69
Page 70
Page 70
Page 71
Page 71
Page 72
Additional Notes: 1. If a Tree Preservation Order is placed on any of the trees after this felling permission is issued, the consent of the Local Authority must be obtained before they are felled. 2. Others involved with the felling should be told about this felling permission e.g. by giving a copy of the permission and map to the person felling the trees. If the land is sold, the new owner should also be told about this felling permission. 3. Please refer to the agreed routes for timber haulage. The agreed routes map can be viewed on the Timber Transport Forum website (http://timbertransportforum.org.uk/). As many routes are subject to consultation or restrictions you should discuss and agree your haulage plans (routes and volumes) with the local authority in advance of commencing operations. 4. Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 as amended by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, anyone planning, permitting or carrying out forest operations or other activities in woodlands should be aware of their wildlife protection responsibilities. 5. Under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, anyone planning, permitting, or carrying out forest operations or other activities in woodlands should be aware of their responsibilities for the protection and improvement of water quality and aquatic ecosystems. See http://www.forestrywaterscotland.com/for more information. 6. If you are to fell Larch within the P. ramorum Zone 1 (outside the Management Zone) or Zone 2 areas where you are within 10km of a known infection (which are indicated on the regularly updated map), you must contact your local Conservancy Office before you begin felling to find out if the stand needs to be inspected to confirm the presence or absence of Phytophthora ramorum. The inspection cannot be carried out until the trees are fully in needle. 7. Forestry can be dangerous. The Forest Industry is working together to raise the standards of health, safety and welfare in the work place. More information can be found at: http://www.ukfisa.com/ Page 72
Page 73
1. Felling Permission Ref No(s) or Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN) number Date Approved FPA-8678 Thu, 23 Dec 2021 UK Timber Regulation Due Diligence checklist for timber grown in Great Britain This document is intended to help meet the obligations placed on "operators” to undertake a risk assessment when placing timber or timber products on the market, as defined under UK legislation governing timber legality. It outlines the risk factors associated with timber grown in Great Britain (see overleaf). The details of the timber species, timber volume etc. are listed on the Felling Permission or Forest Plan. Evidence of Lawful Harvesting (If the recipient of the felling permission, or SPHN is felling the timber but not directly placing it on the market then the due diligence form must be passed to the agent or company who are doing so). OR 2. Forest Management Plan Ref No (s) Date Approved Date: Senior Operations Manager, Scottish Forestry Thu, 23 Dec 2021 3. In absence of felling permission, or SPHN or forest plan: Where the timber came from : Name & Address of Supplier/Land Owner: Reason the timber does not derive from an approved felling permission or a forest plan: Certification: If the timber is independently certified enter the certificate number below: Additional Risk Factors: If there are any factors (not covered overleaf) that indicate a risk that the timber could be illegally harvested, enter these below with an explanation of how that risk has been mitigated. Factor Means of Mitigation Declaration by the operator: I declare that the timber referred to above is grown in Great Britain. I have identified any additional risk factors and the action taken to mitigate that risk, and I have no reason to believe that there are further risks of the timber being illegal. Signed: Dated: Further guidance on timber regulations can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/trading-timber-imports-and-exports-from-1-january-2021 Page 73
Page 74
The timber described overleaf was produced from forests in Scotland, part of Great Britain, where the following risk factors apply. 1. Illegality - Forests in Scotland are regulated by Scottish Forestry, an executive agency of the Scottish Government. The incidence of illegal felling in Scotland is low, estimated at much less than 1% of the timber volume harvested. 2. Governance - Great Britain is ranked highly for good governance in independent assessments, such as The Worldwide Governance Indicators project (funded by The World Bank). Moreover forestry proposals in Great Britain are available for comment and Great Britain is well served by bodies from civil-society that contribute specialist knowledge and opinion to the assessment of forestry proposals. 3. International Perspective - There is no UN Security Council ban on timber exports from Great Britain and Great Britain is not associated with or designated as a source of 'conflict timber', both of which are key international indicators of illegality. 4. Forest Regulation - Scotland has specific forest laws (principally, The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018) which convey powers to regulate forestry activities, control felling, administer woodland grants and to manage state forests. The Forestry Commission issued a revised UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) in 2017 which provides a benchmark against which forestry is regulated and is explicit in terms of legal requirements and the assurances of legality and sustainability that can be given by the process of forest regulation. Scottish Forestry are the competent authority with respect to Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. The Forestry Commission reports on behalf of the United Kingdom the sustainability of UK/Great Britain forests in the Global Forest Resources Assessment and Forest Europe indicators and compiles annual statistical information. Scottish Forestry contributes to this reporting. These various sources of information indicate that forests in Scotland, part of Great Britain/UK, are managed on a sustainable basis. 5. Endangered Timber Species - There are no endangered timber species present in Great Britain. 6. Assessment of UK grown timber by the certification schemes - The two major international certification schemes, FSC and PEFC, have assessed Great Britain as being of low risk in terms of their "Controlled Wood" and "Avoidance of Controversial Sources" respectively. This allows up to 30% of non-certified home grown timber to enter supply chains. Approximately 80% of timber coming to the market in Great Britain has been independently certified as coming from well managed forests. This is in addition to the regulatory processes outlined above. Notes for completion of form The person who first places timber / timber products on the market or uses them is defined as an ‘Operator’ under the Regulation: If you are a landowner, harvesting and selling the trees, then complete this form and keep it with the felling permission/forest plan or other details (as appropriate) together with details of the contract for sale of the timber. If you are buying the timber 'standing' and harvesting the trees, then complete this form, ask for a copy of the felling permission or forest plan approval from the owner and keep this form together with details of the contract for purchase of the timber. It is important to keep a record for at least 5 years, as required by the legislation, of timber sales and purchases. Page 74
Page 75
Page 75
Page 76
Page 76
Page 77
9/9 Alternative Restocking Map(s) Page 77
Page 78
Page 78
Page 79
Mabbett & Associates Ltd, Corporate and Registered Office: 13 Henderson Road, Inverness, UK, IV1 1SN Registered in Scotland No: SC 163378 info@mabbett.eu www.mabbett.eu Belfast | Cardiff | Dublin | Dundee | Edinburgh | Glasgow | Inverness | Leicester | Liverpool © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved. The name Mabbett and the Mabbett logo are Trade Marks licensed to Mabbett & Associates Ltd. 4 June 2024 Project No: 315458 Drainage Assessment: New Garage at Cara Villa, Beulah, Garmouth IV32 7LE Prepared for: Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows: Revision Description Date Signed 1.0 First Issue 4 June 2024 G Mackintosh Page 79
Page 80
Drainage Assessment – Cara Villa, Garmouth IV32 7LE 315458 © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Page i Acknowledgement This report has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of Mr Richard Scott in accordance with the scope of work presented by Mabbett & Associates Ltd (Mabbett) via email dated 25 March 2024. This report is based on information and data collected by Mabbett. Should any of the information be incorrect, incomplete or subject to change, Mabbett may wish to revise the report accordingly. This report has been prepared by the following Mabbett personnel: MABBETT & ASSOCIATES LTD Gary Mackintosh, BSc Principal Engineer This report has been reviewed and approved by the following Mabbett personnel: David Clark, BSc (Hons) Project Manager and Environmental Consultant Page 80
Page 81
Drainage Assessment – Cara Villa, Garmouth IV32 7LE 315458 © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Page ii Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction to Surface Water Treatment 1 Section 2.0 Site Information and Ground Conditions 2 2.1 Existing Ground Conditions 2 2.2 Flood Risk 2 2.3 Infiltration Testing 2 Section 3.0 Surface Water 3 3.1 Minimum System Requirements 3 3.2 Recommendation - Surface Water 3 Section 4.0 Disclaimer 4 Section 5.0 References 5 Appendix 1: Site Plan and Approximate Test Hole Location 6 Appendix 2: Surface Water Soakaway Calculations 7 Appendix 3: Surface Water Soakaway Details 8 Page 81
Page 82
Drainage Assessment – Cara Villa, Garmouth IV32 7LE 315458 © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Page 1 of 4 Section 1.0 Introduction Mabbett & Associates Ltd (Mabbett) was commissioned by to undertake an assessment of the surface water management options for a garage to be built at Cara Villa, Beluah, Garmouth, IV32 7LEat or about NGR NJ 34049 62990. 1.1 Introduction to Surface Water Treatment With regard to surface water treatment and dispersal, Regulation 3.6 of the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, as reproduced below, states that: Every building and hard surface within the curtilage of a building, must be designed and constructed with a surface water drainage system that will: (a) ensure the disposal of surface water without threatening the building and the health and safety of the people in and around the building; and (b) have facilities for the separation and removal of silt, grit and pollutants. Section 3.6.3 of the Technical Handbook provides methods of discharging surface water that, if employed, would meet the requirements of the authorities. With regard to SEPA’s requirements, General Binding Rule (GBR) 10, in pursuance of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, states that the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) is required unless the discharge arises from a single house or if the discharge is to be made to coastal waters. GBR10 and the relevant associated rule is outlined overleaf. SEPA and Building Regulations require that infiltration systems (soakaways) are located at least: – 50m from any spring, well or borehole used as drinking water supply – 10m horizontally from any watercourse (including any inland and coastal waters, permeable drain (including culvert), road or railway – 5m from a building or boundary Page 82
Page 83
Drainage Assessment – Cara Villa, Garmouth IV32 7LE 315458 © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Page 2 of 4 Section 2.0 Site Information and Ground Conditions 2.1 Existing Ground Conditions Trial pits were excavated by a mechanical digger on 14th September 2023 by Fairhurst Consulting Engineers to assess the existing soils and their suitability for the use of sub surface soakaways. The trial pits were excavated to a depth of 2.0m. The existing soils consist of 450mm Topsoils with some roots and rootlets overlying fine medium brown sands with occasional rounded stones turning to medium brown orange sands and medium/large rounded stones to the depth of the excavations. There was no evidence of contamination or water table present within the trial pits. 2.2 Flood Risk The SEPA Flood Map identifies the site as being at very low risk of flooding. The proposed development lies out with any areas of potential pluvial and fluvial flooding during a 1 in 200year event. 2.3 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was carried out in full accordance with BRE digest 365 and the results can be found in the table below: Infiltration Pit Dimensions Test Zone Infiltration Test Hole No (w/l) (mgbl) Rate (m/s) INF01 1.2m x 1.2m 1.0m – 2.0m 1.67 x 10-4 (0.6 m/hr) Page 83
Page 84
Drainage Assessment – Cara Villa, Garmouth IV32 7LE 315458 © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Page 3 of 4 Section 3.0 Surface Water 3.1 Minimum System Requirements In pursuit of compliance with Regulation 3.6 of the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, Section 3.6.3 of the Technical Handbook provides methods of discharging surface water that, if employed, would meet the requirements: (a) a SUD system designed and constructed in accordance with clause 3.6.4; (b) a soakaway constructed in accordance with: clause 3.6.5; the guidance in BRE Digest 365, ‘Soakaway Design’, or National Annex NG 2 of BS EN 752-4: 1998; (c) A public sewer provided under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968; (d) An outfall to a watercourse, such as a river, stream or loch or coastal waters, that complies with any notice and/or consent by SEPA, or (e) If the surface water is from a dwelling, to a storage container with an overflow discharging to either of the 4 options above. The area to be drained consists of the roof of the garage. 3.2 Recommendation - Surface Water Mabbett recommends that a new standard stone filled surface water soakaway be installed to manage the runoff from the roof of the garage. The surface water calculations within Appendix 2 detail the requirement and suitability of a soakaway with dimensions of 4m x 2.5m x 1.2m below the invert of the inlet. The sizing has been based on a contributing area of 240m² (Roof with extra over) for a 1:30year event with 37% allowance for climate change. The soakaway details have been included within Appendix 3. Page 84
Page 85
Drainage Assessment – Cara Villa, Garmouth IV32 7LE 315458 © 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Page 4 of 4 Section 4.0 Disclaimer The content of this assessment is for internal use only and should not be distributed to third parties unless under the expressed authority of our client. The designs, recommendations and outline proposals shall remain the property of Mabbett & Associates Ltd and shall not be plagiarised in any form without authority to do so. The comments and recommendations stipulated are solely those expressed by Mabbett & Associates Ltd, and both parties understand that the comments and recommendations expressed are not binding. Mabbett & Associates Ltd confirms that reasonable skill, care, and diligence have been applied and that any design element has been carried out using verifiable and approved reference documentation. No responsibility shall be assumed by Mabbett & Associates Ltd for system failure as a result of incorrect installation work by contractors assigned by the client or incorrect or inappropriate implementation of Mabbett & Associates Ltd’s recommendations. Page 85
Page 86
© 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Section 5.0 References Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 The Scottish Building Standards: Technical Handbook 2019: Domestic The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 SEPA: The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 - A Practical Guide) Version 9.3, June 2023. Page 86
Page 87
© 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Appendix 1 Appendix 1: Site Plan and Approximate Test Hole Location Page 87
Page 88
DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAW ING, IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED ON SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT. THIS DRAW ING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF MABBETT & ASSOCIATES LTD Client Project Drawing No: Scale Drawing Rev Drawn Status Sheet Check Date W illow House Stoneyfield Business Park Inverness IV2 7PA Tel: 01463 237229 www.mabbett.eu Description Date Rev. Drawn DC 04/06/24 PL01 X 315458 A3 GMNTS Issue Test Hole Location Site Plan Garmouth IV32 7LE Cara Villa, Beluah New Garage Mr and Mrs Seely - - - - north Page 88
Page 89
© 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Appendix 2 Appendix 2: Surface Water Soakaway Calculations Page 89
Page 90
MabbeƩ & Associates Ltd Unit 2 Horizon Scotland Forres Enterprise Park Forres File: Network: Storm Network Gary Mackintosh 04/06/2024 Page 1 Cara Villa Beluah Garmouth IV32 7LE Flow+ v10.6.234 Copyright © 1988-2024 Causeway Technologies Ltd Design Seƫngs Rainfall Methodology Return Period (years) AddiƟonal Flow (%) FSR Region M5-60 (mm) RaƟo-R CV Time of Entry (mins) FSR 30 0 Scotland and Ireland 14.000 0.300 0.750 5.00 Maximum Time of ConcentraƟon (mins) Maximum Rainfall (mm/hr) Minimum Velocity (m/s) ConnecƟon Type Minimum Backdrop Height (m) Preferred Cover Depth (m) Include Intermediate Ground Enforce best pracƟce design rules 30.00 50.0 1.00 Level Soĸts 0.200 1.200 ✓ ✓ Nodes Name Area (ha) T of E (mins) Cover Level (m) Depth (m) One 0.024 5.00 100.000 2.000 SimulaƟon Seƫngs Rainfall Methodology FSR Region M5-60 (mm) RaƟo-R Summer CV Winter CV FSR Scotland and Ireland 14.000 0.300 0.750 0.840 Analysis Speed Skip Steady State Drain Down Time (mins) AddiƟonal Storage (m³/ha) Check Discharge Rate(s) Check Discharge Volume Normal x 240 20.0 x x Storm DuraƟons 15 30 60 120 180 240 360 480 600 720 960 1440 Return Period (years) Climate Change (CC %) AddiƟonal Area (A %) AddiƟonal Flow (Q %) 30 37 0 0 Node One Soakaway Storage Structure Base Inf Coeĸcient (m/hr) Side Inf Coeĸcient (m/hr) Safety Factor Porosity 0.00000 0.60000 2.0 0.30 Invert Level (m) Time to half empty (mins) Pit Width (m) Pit Length (m) 98.000 46 2.500 4.000 Depth (m) Inf Depth (m) Number Required 1.200 1 Other (defaults) Entry Loss (manhole) Exit Loss (manhole) 0.250 0.250 Entry Loss (juncƟon) Exit Loss (juncƟon) 0.000 0.000 Apply Recommended Losses Flood Risk (m) x 0.300 Rainfall Event Peak Intensity (mm/hr) Average Intensity (mm/hr) Event Peak Intensity (mm/hr) Average Intensity (mm/hr) 30 year +37% CC 15 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 15 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 30 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 30 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 60 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 60 minute winter 233.120 163.593 158.607 111.303 110.420 73.360 65.965 65.965 44.880 44.880 29.181 29.181 30 year +37% CC 120 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 120 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 180 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 180 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 240 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 240 minute winter 69.521 46.188 54.101 35.167 43.168 28.680 18.372 18.372 13.922 13.922 11.408 11.408 Page 90
Page 91
MabbeƩ & Associates Ltd Unit 2 Horizon Scotland Forres Enterprise Park Forres File: Network: Storm Network Gary Mackintosh 04/06/2024 Page 2 Cara Villa Beluah Garmouth IV32 7LE Flow+ v10.6.234 Copyright © 1988-2024 Causeway Technologies Ltd Rainfall Event Peak Intensity (mm/hr) Average Intensity (mm/hr) Event Peak Intensity (mm/hr) Average Intensity (mm/hr) 30 year +37% CC 360 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 360 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 480 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 480 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 600 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 600 minute winter 33.404 21.713 26.576 17.656 21.940 14.991 8.596 8.596 7.023 7.023 6.001 6.001 30 year +37% CC 720 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 720 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 960 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 960 minute winter 30 year +37% CC 1440 minute summer 30 year +37% CC 1440 minute winter 19.685 13.230 16.343 10.826 12.041 8.093 5.276 5.276 4.304 4.304 3.227 3.227 Page 91
Page 92
MabbeƩ & Associates Ltd Unit 2 Horizon Scotland Forres Enterprise Park Forres File: Network: Storm Network Gary Mackintosh 04/06/2024 Page 3 Cara Villa Beluah Garmouth IV32 7LE Flow+ v10.6.234 Copyright © 1988-2024 Causeway Technologies Ltd Results for 30 year +37% CC CriƟcal Storm DuraƟon. Lowest mass balance: 100.00% Node Event US Node Peak (mins) Level (m) Depth (m) InŇow (l/s) Node Vol (m³) Flood (m³) Status Link Event (Upstream Depth) US Node Link Ouƞlow (l/s) 60 minute winter One 46 99.170 1.170 4.0 3.7909 0.0000 OK 60 minute winter One InĮltraƟon 1.3 Page 92
Page 93
© 2024, Mabbett & Associates Ltd Appendix 3 Appendix 3: Surface Water Soakaway Details Page 93
Page 94
100mm BED TO BE PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL 150mm BED TO BE PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL 450mm DIA INSPECTION CHAMBER AND COVER 100mm BED TO BE PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL 100mm DIA SOLID PIPE 100mm DIA SOLID PIPE 100mm DIA SOLID PIPE PIT FILLED WITH CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK, SURROUNDED WITH TERRAM 1000 OR EQUAL. BASE OF PIT OPEN - NO TERRAM 150mm DIA UPVC INSPECTION 1200mm 800mm MIN COVER MD COVER AND FRAME RODDING EYE COVER LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH RAINW ATER SOAKAW AY (NTS) Dimensions as per Report FULLY PERFORATED 150mm pvc PIPE DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAW ING, IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED ON SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT. THIS DRAW ING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF MABBETT & ASSOCIATES LTD Client Project Drawing No: Scale Drawing Rev Drawn Status Sheet Check Date W illow House Stoneyfield Business Park Inverness IV2 7PA Tel: 01463 237229 www.mabbett.eu Description Date Rev. Drawn DC 04/06/24 PL02 X 315458 A3 GMNTS Issue Construction Details Surface Water Soakaway Garmouth IV32 7LE Cara Villa, Beluah New Garage Mr and Mrs Seely - - - - Page 94
Page 95
Friday 2nd April 2021 1 Oikos Architectural Limited - Registered in Scotland No.272963 VAT Reg. No. 847654487 Highland Office 4 Bridge Street Nairn Highlands IV12 4EJ t 01667 300230 PLANNINGCONSULTANCY ARCHITECTURALDESIGN PROJECTM ANAGEM ENT RENEW ABLECONSULTANCY Lossiemouth Office Ellel, James Street Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6BX t 01343 612305 Head Office - Moray 69 St Brendans South Guildry Street Elgin Moray IV30 1QN t 01343 540020 e office@cmdesign.biz w cmdesign.biz Devon Office The Generator Quay House The Gallery, Kings Wharf Exeter EX2 4AN t 01392 345566 DRAINAGE STATEMENT Erection of New Garage & Workshop At Beulah, Garmouth: 240008 INTRODUCTION: This Drainage Statement has been prepared by CM Design Architectural & Planning Consultants in response to recent changes in Moray Council Policy, which seek to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding and to ensure that any new development does not impact upon flooding issues in Moray. National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) requires Planning Authorities to take into account Flood risk when considering new development. This Drainage Statement confirms there to be no flood risk issues on the application site whatsoever. This statement has been prepared in line with the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) dated Feb 2023. SITE DESCRIPTON: The proposed site is situated on land West of Beulah, Garmouth. The site represents a wooded area of garden with the total site equating to approximately 7,269m2. The SEPA Flood Maps have been consulted which indicate that there is no risk of flooding. A basic site level survey has also been carried out demonstrating how the site gently slopes North to South on well-draining grounds. The proposed development is to erect a Garage and Workshop within the grounds of the existing House. All services are within the Site. SITE CONDITIONS: The site is believed to have good infiltration rates based on a walkover survey and the presence of the adjacent property. There have been no excavation or percolation tests carried out at this stage. A report by Mabbett will follow once the necessary survey and tests have been undertaken. DRAINAGE DESIGN: Rain water will be dealt with my means of a private surface water soakaway, within the site, and sited a minimum of five meters from both the Garage and any site boundary. There is ample space within the site for this to be achieved. All soakaways will inevitably be designed by a qualified engineer and will conform to Technical Standard handbook design and ensure that the Post-development runoff rate does not exceed the pre-development runoff rate or increase the risk of Page 95
Page 96
Friday 2nd April 2021 2 Oikos Architectural Limited - Registered in Scotland No.272963 VAT Reg. No. 847654487 Highland Office 4 Bridge Street Nairn Highlands IV12 4EJ t 01667 300230 PLANNINGCONSULTANCY ARCHITECTURALDESIGN PROJECTM ANAGEM ENT RENEW ABLECONSULTANCY Lossiemouth Office Ellel, James Street Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6BX t 01343 612305 Head Office - Moray 69 St Brendans South Guildry Street Elgin Moray IV30 1QN t 01343 540020 e office@cmdesign.biz w cmdesign.biz Devon Office The Generator Quay House The Gallery, Kings Wharf Exeter EX2 4AN t 01392 345566 flooding risk through any discharge to a receiving watercourse. A copy of this report will be submitted in due course. We trust this Drainage Statement alleviates any flooding concerns in the meantime. Sincerely yours, Sincerely yours, MIRIAM DUNCAN ARCHITECTURAL TECHNICIAN MIRIAM@CMDESIGN.BIZ Page 96
Page 97
REPORT OF HANDLING Ref No: 24/01517/APP Officer: Fiona Olsen Proposal Description/ Address Change of use of ancient woodland to garden ground and erect a domestic garage/workshop at Beulah Garmouth Fochabers Moray Date: 14.01.2025 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 Contaminated Land 08/10/24 No Objections. Transportation Manager 11/10/24 No Objections subject to conditions. Moray Flood Risk Management 15/10/24 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 Y NPF5 - Soils N Complies NPF6 - Forestry, woodland and trees Y NPF7 - Historic assets and places N Complies NPF13 - Sustainable transport N Complies NPF14 - Design, quality and place Y NPF15 - Local living N Complies NPF16 - Quality homes Y NPF22 - Flood risk N Complies NPF23 - Health and safety N Complies PP1 Placemaking N Complies Page 97
Page 98
Page 2 of 7 PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth N Complies PP3 Infrastructure and Services N Complies DP1 Development Principles Y EP1 Natural Heritage Designation N Complies EP2 Biodiversity N Complies EP3 Special Landscape Areas Y EP7 Forestry Woodland and Trees Y 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 change the use of an area of ancient woodland to domestic garden ground and erect a domestic garage/workshop. The proposed garage would measure approx. 20m x 10m x 7.5m (to the roof ridge). The building would compromise a cuboid chape with a pitched roof and large box dormer on the front roof plane. Two roller shutter doors, and an access door are also proposed on the front with a 'lorry port' to be attached to the north elevation. The accommodation will be across two floors with space for cars on the ground floor and a workshop and store on the first floor. The garage is proposed to be finished in rendered blockwork walls and a steel profile roof. Site The site sits to the west of an existing dwellinghouse (separated by a private access track) and is approx. 756sqm. The existing dwellinghouse is 'Beulah', Garmouth. The dwelling was erected in the late 1990s under 96/02088/FUL and 95/01560/FUL. Page 98
Page 99
Page 3 of 7 The site for the garage did not form part of the original site boundary for the dwelling when approved in 1996 and 1997. As such the site remains designated Ancient Woodland. The site was felled approx. 4 years ago and has been replanted with a small number Silver Birch, Scots pine, holly and beech. The site is also within the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle Special Landscape Area. The site lies adjacent to but not within an area of medium risk of river flooding as per the SEPA flood maps. Policy Assessment Ancient Woodland and Tree Removal (NFP4 Policy 6, MLDP 2020 Policy EP7) NPF4 Policy 6(b) Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in any loss of ancient woodland. EP7 requires that proposals must retain healthy trees and incorporate them within the proposal unless it is technically unfeasible to retain these. Where trees exist on or bordering a development site, a tree survey, tree protection plan and mitigation plan must be provided with the planning application if the trees or trees bordering the site have the potential to be affected by development and construction activity. This means that the removal of trees will only be permitted where key infrastructure such as pipes, power lines, access, etc. are required to facilitate the development and it has been satisfactorily demonstrated by the applicant that this cannot be achieved in any other way and the main element of the design has incorporated healthy trees into the proposal. The MLDP2020 Supplementary Guidance states that the removal of trees will only be Policy EP7 also requires that where it is technically unfeasible to retain trees compensatory planting on a one for one basis must be provided within the site. As outlined the site is on an area of ground designated Ancient Woodland and the proposals seek to change the use of this area of ground to domestic garden ground and erect a domestic garage/workshop. NPF4 Policy 6 does not support the loss of any ancient woodland. A tree survey has been submitted which outlines that the site was felled around 4 years ago and has been replanted with around 30 young silver birch, some Scots pine, holly and beech. These trees are between 30cm and 100cm and are in good health. Whilst the report states that the trees could be transplanted to a new woodland creation site, the change of use of the ground to domestic garden ground would result in the permanent loss of an area of ground designated Ancient Woodland. It is also noted that Ancient Woodland comprises not only trees but the ground vegetation and soils in which trees sit. As a result, the proposals would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 6 due to the permanent loss of woodland which would occur. Whilst a tree survey has been submitted, the trees are deemed to be healthy as per the tree survey submitted and the proposal to remove the trees from the site (albeit with the potential to transplant the trees to a new site and create a new woodland) to form the new garage would not comply with MLDP 2020 Policy EP7 as it is not considered technically unfeasible to retain the trees (i.e. the removal is not required for key infrastructure such as pipes, power lines, access etc) in line with policy EP7. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with EP7 on tree removal. Siting and Design (NPF4 Policies 4, 14, 16, MLDP 2020 Policies DP1, EP3) NPF4 Policy 14 and DP1 together set out the need for the scale, density and character to be appropriate to the surrounding area to create a sense of place, integrated into the surrounding landscape with no adverse impact upon neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, daylighting, or overbearing loss of amenity. DP1 also states that pitched roofs are preferred to flat roofs and box dormers are not acceptable. NPF4 Policy 16 Quality Homes requires householder development proposals to not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home or surrounding area in Page 99
Page 100
Page 4 of 7 terms of size, design, and materials and to not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing, or overlooking. The site is within the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle Special Landscape Area. As such NPF4 policy 4 requires development in local landscape designations to not have significant adverse effects on the integrity or qualities of that area. Policy EP3 requires development proposals within SLAs to not prejudice the special qualities of the designated area set out within the Local Landscape Designation Review, adopt the highest standards of design in accordance with policy DP1 and other relevant policies, minimises adverse impacts on the landscape and visual qualities the area is important for. The Local Landscape Designation Review refers to the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle SLA and mentions woodlands of beech, pine and birch as a consistent feature and key quality of the area. The review also states that the landscape is sensitive to the loss of mature woodlands and trees. The proposed garage is large and is considered an inappropriate scale and bulk for the proposed site which would sit in an exposed location adjacent to the public road and remote from the parent dwelling. Whilst the building is proposed as for domestic use only, the sheer scale and remoteness to the main dwelling would result in the building being read as a standalone unit and not part of the main group of buildings at Beulah. It is further noted that the applicant's supporting statement outlines that the future intention may be to subdivide the house and garage, to allow the applicant to downsize. As such the proposed large-scale garage in this location, remote to the main parent dwelling, in a prominent location adjacent to the main road and the resultant loss of trees and ancient woodland would be considered an unacceptable development for this location as it would have a detrimental impact on the rural wooded character of the area and would prejudice the special qualities which the Special Landscape Area is set out for and as such is considered to fail to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 14 and 16 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP3. In terms of design, the garage would include a large, glazed box dormer on the front elevation. MLDP 2020 Policy DP1 states that box dormers are not acceptable. When coupled with the inappropriate scale and bulk of the garage, the proposed box dormer is considered an unacceptable design feature for the proposed building and would fail to comply with Policy DP1 In terms of any amenity impacts, although the garage is large, it would not be considered to give rise to an unacceptable loss of light, overshadowing or loss of privacy to any neighbouring property, given the orientation and location of the building which would be set back from other dwellings within the vicinity. However this would not override the aforementioned objections and the application will be refused. To summarise, the proposal to change the use of the existing area of Ancient Woodland and to erect a garage/workshop is considered unacceptable and the application will be refused. The proposals would result in the loss of an area of Ancient Woodland and the removal of healthy trees from the site which fails to comply with both NPF4 Policy 6 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP7. The proposed garage is also considered to be an unacceptable scale and design for the site and would fail to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 16 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP3. Climate Change, Biodiversity and Soils (NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5) Notwithstanding the aforementioned objections with regard to tree removal and the loss of ancient woodland, the proposals are not considered to have an unacceptable impact in terms of climate change and soil disturbance and it is not necessary to seek formal biodiversity enhancement on a proposal of this nature and therefore the proposal is deemed to comply with NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5. Page 100
Page 101
Page 5 of 7 Drainage (DP1, EP12, EP14, NPF4 Policy 22) A Drainage Assessment has been submitted which outlines that any surface water from the developments will be directed to a new standard stonefilled soakaway. Ground testing and calculations have been undertaken to confirm ground suitability. Moray Flood Risk Management have been consulted and have raised no objections. As such the proposed drainage arrangements are deemed acceptable in terms of NPF4 Policy 22 and DP1, EP12 and EP14. This does not override the aforementioned objections with regard to the loss of ancient woodland, loss of healthy trees and an unacceptable building scale and design and as such the application will be refused. Should the application be approved as part of any future appeal, the implementation of the drainage design would be required to be controlled by condition on any final consent. Conclusion The application will be refused as the proposals would result in the loss of an area of Ancient Woodland and the removal of healthy trees from the site which fails to comply with both NPF4 Policy 6 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP7. The proposed garage is also considered to be an unacceptable scale and design for the site and would fail to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 14, 16 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP3. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT None HISTORY Reference No. Description New detached garage workshop for domestic use at Beulah Garmouth Fochabers Moray IV32 7LE 24/00414/APP Decision Withdrawn Date Of Decision 09/07/24 Alter and extend dwellinghouse at Beulah Garmouth Fochabers Moray IV32 7LE 23/01716/APP Decision Permitted Date Of Decision 24/11/23 ADVERT Advert Fee paid? Yes Local Newspaper Reason for Advert Date of expiry Northern Scot Departure from development plan No Premises 07/11/24 PINS Departure from development plan No Premises 07/11/24 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (PGU) Status N/A Page 101
Page 102
Page 6 of 7 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: Drainage Assessment (dated 04/06/2024, ref: 315458) Main Issues: Outlines ground testing and calculations undertaken to confirm suitability for a surface water soakaway. Document Name: Drainage Statement Main Issues: Outlines that site is not at risk of flooding and it is proposed to dispose of surface waters via a surface water soakaway. Document Name: Tree Survey - Groves Forestry, September 2024 Main Issues: Outlines details of a Tree Survey undertaken of the site which states that the woodland is recorded as ancient semi-natural woodland. States that the land where the garage is to be built has an area of 0.09ha, it was formally part of a Scots pine plantation, planted around 1970. The site was felled approx. 4 years ago and has been replanted with a small number of Scots pine as well as larch, rowan and sycamore. Document Name: Scottish Forestry Letter (dated 23/12/2021) Main Issues: Outlines details of a Felling Permission which includes restocking operations required to be undertaken by June 2025. Document Name: Supporting Statement Main Issues: Outlines reason for purchase of property. Confirms proposed use of garage as domestic for cars and potential to subdivide from main property in future. Also discusses woodland designation of ground. Finaly discusses compensatory planting which would be undertaken for trees to be removed from site. Document Name: Letter of Support Main Issues: Letter outlining support for application. Page 102
Page 103
Page 7 of 7 Document Name: Additional Supporting Statement (dated 27th November 2024) Main Issues: Accepts that site is within an area of designated Ancient Woodland. Outlines details of compensatory planting which could be undertaken Outlines that proposed design could be altered if unacceptable Again, outlines that site was deemed suitable due to remote location from dwellinghouse as intention may be to subdivide house and garage in future, if permitted. Document Name: 2nd Additional Supporting Statement (dated 30th November 2024) Main Issues: Outlines details of existing garage which may have been original cottage and outlines that it is not fit for purpose and becomes inundated during periods of heavy rainfall. 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 103
Page 104
Page 104
Page 105
(Page 1 of 3) Ref: 24/01517/APP MORAY COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997, as amended REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION [Fochabers Lhanbryde] Application for Planning Permission TO Mr Peter Seely Beulah Garmouth Fochabers 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:- Change of use of ancient woodland to garden ground and erect a domestic garage/workshop at Beulah Garmouth Fochabers Moray and for the reason(s) set out in the attached schedule. Date of Notice: 15 January 2025 HEAD OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Economy, Environment and Finance Moray Council Council Office High Street ELGIN Moray IV30 1BX Page 105
Page 106
(Page 2 of 3) Ref: 24/01517/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 National Planning Framework 4 and Moray Local Development Plan (2020) for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change of use an area of Ancient Woodland to domestic garden ground is unacceptable as it would result in the loss of an area of designated Ancient Woodland which is not supported by NPF4 Policy 6. 2. The proposed garage would result in the removal of healthy trees from the site which would fail to comply with MLDP 2020 Policy EP7 which only permits the removal of healthy trees where it is technically unfeasible to retain these. 3. The garage is considered an unacceptable scale and design for the prominent roadside location and would not be read alongside the main dwellinghouse which is set on the opposite side of an existing private access road, resulting in a detrimental impact on the rural wooded character of the area. The garage would contain a large box dormer which is not permitted by policy DP1. The proposals would also prejudice the special qualities of the Special Landscape Area and would therefore fail to comply with NPF4 Policies 4, 14, 6 and MLDP 2020 Policies DP1 and EP3. LIST OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT The following plans and drawings form part of the decision:- Reference Version Title 240008.SEELY.02PP A Proposed garage/workshop details 240008.SEELY.04PP Location and part site plan 240008.SEELY.03PP First Floor 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 Page 106
Page 107
(Page 3 of 3) Ref: 24/01517/APP 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 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 107
Page 108
Page 108
Page 109
APPENDIX 2 NOTICE OF REVIEW, GROUNDS FOR REVIEW & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Page 109
Page 110
Page 110
Page 111
Page 111
Page 112
Page 112
Page 113
Page 113
Page 114
Page 114
Page 115
Grounds for Appeal Response to Moray Council Refusal of ApplicaƟon for the change of use of woodland to garden ground and erecƟon of a domesƟc garage/workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Fochabers, Moray, IV32 7LE Please read all SupporƟng Statements, in parƟcular the AddiƟonal SupporƟng Statement dated 27 November 2024, in conjuncƟon with the following: 1. Refusal Reason No 1. Ancient Woodland. The ground on which the proposed garage would sit is contained within a 681.19 ha area called Sleepieshill which is designated Ancient Woodland,. This area is delineated by a perimeter within which there is no differenƟaƟon between varying secƟons of ground or whether trees are present or not. For example it does not disƟnguish between roads, garden, hedgerows, fields, buildings or genuine Ancient Woodland. It is true to say therefore that just because ground sits within an area designated as Ancient Woodland this does not automaƟcally mean it is such. Nature Scotland state that ‘in Scotland, ancient woodland is defined as land that is currently wooded and has been conƟnually wooded since at least 1750’. According to the Tree Survey and Tree ProtecƟon Plan created by consultant arborist Mr Angus Dixon, BSc, Groves Forestry Co, the land in quesƟon was formally part of a Scots pine plantaƟon planted around 1970. The Scots pines were felled four years ago and aŌer a period of Ɵme the land was replanted with saplings. This piece of land cannot therefore be designated as Ancient Woodland for two reasons. First, the trees that were present prior to Storm Arwen were only planted in 1970. Secondly, it has not been conƟnually wooded since 1970 since there were no trees standing on the site aŌer Storm Arwen in 2021. Moray Council have acknowledged the absence of mature trees on the site but claim that Ancient Woodland comprises not only trees but the ground vegetation and soils in which trees sit. This assertion is not reflected in Nature Scotland’s definition. In addiƟon, according to Mr Dixon there is nothing irreplaceable or worthy of special preservaƟon that would be irrevocably lost on the proposed site; the associated vegetaƟon and soil does not contain any unique features. Given these facts it is technically incorrect to refuse this ApplicaƟon on the basis of the ground being deemed to be Ancient Woodland. Page 115
Page 116
2. Refusal Reason No 2. Removal of Healthy Trees. Mr Angus Dixon states in the Tree Survey and Tree ProtecƟon Plan that all saplings would be transplanted to a new woodland creaƟon site before building work begins. There will be no loss of trees. On the contrary, a greater area of woodland will be created through compensatory replanƟng should this appeal be accepted. To further support this informaƟon Mr Dixon liaised with Scoƫsh Forestry with respect to the change of use of this land to ascertain whether there was any opposition to the proposed site being used as described. Scottish Forestry has no objection to the proposal. 3. Refusal Reason No 3. Garage Scale, Design and LocaƟon. Moray Council required a plan of the proposed garage to be submitted with the original Application. This had initially been omitted since it was not considered to be relevant to the Application at that stage. However, it was made very clear in the Supporting Statement that the plan was purely representaƟve and that the building’s scale and design would fit in with the surrounds to the Council’s saƟsfacƟon. Notwithstanding this, a minimum size would clearly be necessary to provide adequate storage and work areas. The locaƟon of the proposed garage is the most advantageous and viable opƟon for the following reasons: i. The proposed locaƟon of the garage lies on the outer edge of Moray Council’s designated Special Landscape Area (SLA) Lower Spey and Gordon Castle. This site minimises any perceived impact on the SLA since it would be situated on the western boundary which is defined by the minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road immediately outside the driveway. The building would be invisible from the River Spey given the cover provided by both the house and the trees on the east side of the proposed site. It is worth noƟng that planning permission for two separate domesƟc dwellings have been granted within half a mile of the proposed site, one of which adjoins it. A refusal of the ApplicaƟon based on this criterion would be unreasonably puniƟve and inconsistent. ii. Neighbours have supported the site of the garage since it would be as far removed as possible from adjoining houses. Please refer to a leƩer from neighbours dated 27 January 2024. The proposed locaƟon is therefore to the benefit of the local community compared to a garage located close to neighbouring dwellings. iii. Being remotely located from the house, the site offers the flexibility of being retainable should the need to downsize arise in the future. Page 116
Page 117
Given the above I believe the Council’s refusal of the ApplicaƟon is technically incorrect (Ancient Woodland) and an overly rigid applicaƟon of policy. It is hoped that the Local Review Body will take into account the circumstances I faced when buying this property, my reasons for doing so and to put themselves in my posiƟon. I would like to think a decision will be made based on the outcome individual members would hope for if they faced similar circumstances rather than dogmaƟcally apply policy as if it were a law that cannot be broken. Applicant 18 January 2025 Page 117
Page 118
Page 118
Page 119
1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT Change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erecƟon of a domesƟc garage workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Proposal Ref: 100687032-001 1. INTRODUCTION This proposal relates to the change of use of up to 930 m² (0.09 hectares) of woodland to garden ground to permit the erection of a domestic garage workshop within the grounds of Beulah, Garmouth, an existing house in Morayshire. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Having retired last year my wife and I moved back to Moray after a period of absence due to work commitments. Whilst living away I realised a life-long ambition to participate in motorsport, my retirement aspiration being to continue this hobby. As a privateer I do all the work on the car and support vehicles myself and therefore need a suitable garage workshop. 2.2 We purchased Beulah (formerly Cara Villa) for many reasons, one being that it provides an ideal location to site a garage workshop. A major consideration for the selection of the site is that, being remote from the house and next to the road, the garage could be retained should we need to downsize at some point. Without this flexibility I would have to restart the process of finding somewhere to keep and work on my race car if we were forced to move due to age/health, thereby incurring additional expense as well as facing the logistical problem of where to keep the equipment during the transition. Not wishing to go into personal detail, my wife is the most likely of the two of us to need to downsize in the future. 2.3 A planning application was submitted on my behalf by a local architectural company in March this year (online reference number 100663503-001) but was returned due to it failing to address the need for a change of use of the ground in question from woodland to garden. This application is therefore in response to Moray Council’s instruction. Accompanying information provided by the Council was that an application would not be likely to receive a posiƟve recommendaƟon given that the proposed site is on ancient woodland, a fact we were unaware of when we bought the property. 2.4 When purchasing the house in June 2023 there was nothing to suggest to us that the site’s use would be limited. As the attached photos show it has the appearance of waste ground. All the mature trees had been felled as a consequence of Storm Arwen in 2021, information that came to light once we had acquired the property. (A felling order had been granted by Scottish Forestry under permission FPA-8678, copy attached, as well as a restocking order). To further enhance our perception that we would be able to use the proposed site for a garage, we were informed that planning permission had been granted for the erection of a house on Page 119
Page 120
2 the ground immediately adjoining to the north (planning application 20/00455/APP dated 10 June 2020 refers) as well as noting the existence of three other recently built houses in close proximity. Given the demand for property in the area and knowing that other parties were interested in purchasing Beulah there simply wasn’t the luxury of time to research the possibility of building a garage on this site any further; any additional delay would have jeopardised the opportunity to buy. In good faith we had gathered as much evidence as possible to make us believe the proposed site would be viable. 3. SITE LOCATION 3.1 The plot on which Beulah sits extends to circa 6,070 m², (0.607 hectares) encompassing the house, an access road to a neighbouring house Speyview, garden grounds, woodland and the specific woodland site relaƟng to this applicaƟon with an area of approximately 930 m². 3.2 The site is accessible via an established entrance off the minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road. 3.3 The area applied for a change of use from woodland to garden excludes the legal right of access track leading to Speyview. 3.4 Beulah is one of 4 exisƟng houses within a small rural grouping. 3.5 This applicaƟon relates to an addiƟon to an exisƟng dwelling, not a new development on a different plot. 4. POLICY COMPLIANCE 4.1 The site is located outside the Speyside flood risk area. 4.2 The site is registered on the NaƟonal Forest Inventory (NFI) as ancient semi-natural woodland and occupies an area of approximately 930 m² (0.093 hectares). Following Storm Arwen in November 2021, exisƟng trees damaged by the winds were felled under permission FPA-8678. The site was restocked with around 30 silver birch and a small number of Scots pine, holly and beech. AŌer four years growth, these trees are not yet established and could readily be transplanted. 4.3 As the photos below illustrate, the proposed site is visually unaƩracƟve giving the appearance of waste ground. The minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road runs parallel to the line of gorse bushes on the leŌ-hand side of the first photo which looks north, the pine trees defining the edge of Lunan Wood on the west side of the road. As menƟoned in the introducƟon to this SupporƟng Statement, planning permission has been granted for a dwelling house adjacent to the proposed site which is also designated as ancient semi-natural woodland. The locaƟon of this would be in the foreground of the red coloured container and house in the photo. Page 120
Page 121
3 4.4 The second photo below looks east and shows the proposed site on the left-hand side of the picture, the driveway leading to Beulah on the right-hand side of the picture, the access road to Speyview (defined by the fence and posts) which is excluded from the application and an established area of woodland in the centre of the shot that is referred to in the Tree Survey. This woodland is close enough to the site to be included in the Survey but would not be affected. Just out of the picture on the right-hand side (south) is further woodland referred to in the Survey. Page 121
Page 122
4 4.4 With reference to the Scoƫsh Government NaƟonal Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 (b), and Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP2020), Policy EP7, this proposal would not result in the loss of ancient and veteran trees, or have an adverse impact on their ecological condiƟon. There would be no adverse impact on naƟve woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value, or idenƟfied for protecƟon in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy. In addiƟon no fragmenƟng or severing of woodland habitats would result. 4.5 A Tree Survey carried out on 24 January 2024 by Mr Angus Dixon, Groves Forestry, accompanies this applicaƟon. Compensatory replanƟng has been detailed in this Survey in accordance with EP7 (e). The planƟng would be located at Nether Brown Muir, a site on the north side of Brown Muir Hill, above Millbuies. As stated above in paragraph 4.2, exisƟng saplings would be transplanted at the new site such that there would be no loss of exisƟng trees. In addiƟon twice the area of woodland would be created. Should this amount of compensatory replanting be judged insufficient I would consider increasing it to whatever Moray Council deemed appropriate. Of note, the grassland at Millbuies, when planted with naƟve trees, will acquire over the next 40 years similar woodland soil features of the site at Beulah. This is a comparaƟve period of Ɵme it would take the saplings on the exisƟng site at Beulah to mature. Therefore, nothing would be lost by permiƫng the ground at Beulah to be changed to garden. On the contrary, there would be an increase in the area of semi-natural woodland. Page 122
Page 123
5 4.6 Mr Dixon, author of the Tree Survey, consulted with Scottish Forestry with respect to the change of use of land and whether there was any opposition from their perspective to the proposed site being used as described. Scottish Forestry had no objection to the proposal. 4.7 Whilst the site is within Moray Council’s designated Special Landscape Area (SLA) Lower Spey and Gordon Castle, the garage workshop’s posiƟon adheres to this policy as far as possible. The garage would be situated just inside the western boundary which is defined by the minor Garmouth to Mosstodloch road outside the drive. The garage workshop would thus be virtually invisible from the River Spey given the cover provided by both the house and the trees on the east side of the proposed site. 4.8 Use of this site to posiƟon the garage workshop would limit the impact on immediate neighbours who have supported the proposal. (AƩached leƩer from refers). 4.9 The proposed garage workshop has been sympatheƟcally designed to sit comfortably within the local character of surrounding properƟes and reflects the size and scale of local agricultural buildings. Having said that, the aƩached plans for the design of the building are purely representaƟve; I would willingly cooperate with the Council to ensure the building fits in with the surrounds to their saƟsfacƟon. 4.10 The proposed garage workshop measures 10m x 20m, giving a footprint of only 200m². Whilst this application is to ideally change the use of woodland to garden for the entire site of 930 m², should it be more acceptable to the Council the requested area can be reduced sufficiently to accommodate the requested building leaving the remainder of the site untouched. 4.11 By permitting the change of use of the ground from woodland to garden for the erection of a garage workshop the following public benefits would be realised: 4.11.1.1 A larger area of woodland would be generated at no cost to Moray Council. It is proposed that double the area of woodland is created but should this be judged insufficient I would consider any proposal that the Council deems appropriate. The newly planted woodland would in Ɵme acquire all the woodland soil features of the exisƟng site. 4.11.1.2 The impact on the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle SLA would be minimised compared to the alternaƟve of posiƟoning the garage workshop within the exisƟng ground already designated as garden. 4.11.1.3 Neighbours would benefit from the garage being remotely posiƟoned. It would be out of sight, not obstruct their view or block sunlight. A leƩer from supporƟng the proposed siƟng of the garage is aƩached. Page 123
Page 124
6 4.11.1.4 Morayshire would be represented at motorsport events. Given the long distances involved travelling to and from major race circuits in the UK there are few compeƟtors represenƟng Scotland and even less, if any, from Morayshire. My conƟnued parƟcipaƟon in motorsport would be consistent with Priority 1, SecƟon VI, VII & VIII of Moray Council’s Physical AcƟvity, Sport and Health Strategy which states that the precedence is to: vi. Promote and host local, regional, naƟonal and internaƟonal sporƟng events with all key partners to encourage tourism and showcase what Moray has to offer. vii. Recognise and celebrate the contribuƟon that sport and physical acƟvity provides within Moray and support the need that physical acƟvity and sporƟng opportuniƟes are affordable and aƩracƟve to all our residents. viii. Raise the profile of sport and physical acƟvity within Moray. SUMMARY 5.1 My applicaƟon for the change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erecƟon of a domesƟc garage workshop represents a reƟrement ambiƟon of conƟnued parƟcipaƟon in motorsport. Without this facility it would be economically unviable to conƟnue. The application is flexible and would seek to address any objection the Council may have to it. 5.2 The following summarises the case for why a change of use would not impact the current state of ancient semi-natural woodland negaƟvely. 5.2.1 The area of ground in quesƟon is negligible: ideally 930m² but potenƟally less than 300 m². 5.2.2 There are no mature trees on the site; no felling is required. 5.2.3 ExisƟng saplings would be transplanted therefore no trees would be lost. 5.2.4 The ground of the new site would in Ɵme acquire all the woodland soil features of the exisƟng site. 5.2.5 The proposed site is within an exisƟng property; it is not a new development. 5.3 With reference to the Scoƫsh Government NaƟonal Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 (c), and Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP2020), Policy EP7, and the need Page 124
Page 125
7 for the applicaƟon to be in the interest of the public, the following benefits would be realised should the request be granted: • A larger area of woodland would be generated at no cost to Moray Council. • The impact on the Lower Spey and Gordon Castle SLA would be minimised. • It is in my neighbours’ best interest that the garage is remotely located. • Morayshire would be represented at motorsport events consistent with Moray Council’s Sports Plan. Applicant Page 125
Page 126
Page 126
Page 127
1 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING STATEMENT 27 November 2024 Change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erecƟon of a domesƟc garage workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Proposal Ref: 100687032-001 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Moray Council helpfully pre-warned me that the above applicaƟon would be rejected for 2 reasons: a. ANCIENT WOODLAND. The application site is an area of designated Ancient Woodland. It was not part of the original house plot and as such the application seeks to change the use of the ground to domestic garden ground. Both National Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP7 do not support development which would result in the loss of Ancient Woodland. Ancient Woodland comprises not only trees but the ground vegetation and soils in which trees sit. The proposal to change the use of the woodland to garden ground would fail to comply with NPF4 Policy 6 and policy EP7 as it would result in the permanent loss of land identified as woodland under the Ancient Woodland Inventory. b. PROPOSED GARAGE DESIGN. The proposed garage/workshop is considered to be out of keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. The site is remote to the dwelling (separated by an access track) and would not easily integrate into the site and surrounding area given its height, bulk and location proposed. 1.2. I am appealing this decision and have supplied this Additional Supporting Statement in response to the above points. 2. ANCIENT WOODLAND 2.1. I accept the fact that the applicaƟon site is within a designated area of Ancient Woodland and that the proposal contravenes both National Planning Framework 4 Policy 6 and MLDP 2020 Policy EP7. Indeed I acknowledged and addressed this fact in my original Supporting Statement. 2.2. If a site visit is not part of the appeal process I ask that the photographs aƩached to the original SupporƟng Statement are referenced since they graphically illustrate the following points. 2.2.3. The designaƟon of Ancient Woodland assigned to this parƟcular site gives a misleading impression. It is not typical or representaƟve of what one would consider Ancient Woodland to be; there is only one beech tree which would be unaffected by the construcƟon of the garage/workshop. Please refer to the Tree Survey that was supplied with the applicaƟon. 2.2.4. An area of Ancient Woodland is delineated by a perimeter within which there is no differenƟaƟon between varying secƟons of ground or whether trees are present or not. The Page 127
Page 128
2 plot for Beulah is contained within a 681.19 ha area of Ancient Woodland called Sleepieshill. This area does not disƟnguish between roads, garden, hedgerows, buildings or genuine Ancient Woodland. It is true to say therefore that not every part of it contains Ancient Woodland. According to arborist Mr Angus Dixon, BSc, Consultant, Groves Forestry Company, there is nothing irreplaceable or worthy of special preservaƟon that would be irrevocably lost on the proposed site; the trees prior to being felled were plantation Scots pine and the associated vegetaƟon and soil does not contain any unique features. 2.2.5. Strictly speaking this piece of ground is not Ancient Woodland, which is defined as land that has been conƟnuously wooded since at least 1750. It has merely been amalgamated with woodland that does have the aƩributes to be deemed Ancient Woodland. As an example there is an area containing noteworthy ancient trees along with their associated vegetaƟon and soil on the eastern border of my property. Had my applicaƟon been situated in an area such as this I would have understood the Council’s refusal of my applicaƟon but technically it is incorrect to refuse this applicaƟon on the basis that the ground is Ancient Woodland. 2.2.5. To further support the above informaƟon Mr Dixon liaised with Scoƫsh Forestry on my behalf with respect to the change of use of this land to ascertain whether there was any opposition to the proposed site being used as described. Scottish Forestry has no objection to the proposal. 2.3. Compensatory replanƟng of at least twice the area will be sown with sessile oak, silver birch, hazel, gean, rowan and Scots pine thereby creating a significant area of valuable woodland which would not be generated if this appeal is rejected. Since submitting the initial application a further site has been identified in Garmouth resulting in the woodland being created close to the proposed site if required. This mitigates any perceived loss of woodland and ultimately generates a greater amount. Since there are no established trees on the existing site that would be disturbed the time scale for compensatory replanting to mature is no different to the time it will take for saplings on the proposed site to grow. The net outcome of compensatory replanting would thus enhance Moray’s stock of woodland especially considering rare and exceptional trees would be planted and cultivated. Nothing would be lost by permiƫng the woodland at Beulah to be changed to garden. On the contrary, there would be an increase in the area of quality Ancient Woodland. 2.4. In addition please bear in mind that the site in question is very small - less than 930 m². Its use would have a miniscule effect on the 6,811,900 m² of Sleepieshill Wood. (Less than 0.014%). PROPOSED GARAGE 3.1. DESIGN. Having submitted the application online I was subsequently contacted by a Moray Council Planning Technical Assistant who required me to submit a plan of the proposed garage. I had deliberately left this detail out because I did not consider it to be relevant to the application at this stage. Having done as requested I made it very clear in my Supporting Statement that the plan was purely representaƟve and that I would willingly cooperate with the Council to ensure the building fits in with the surrounds to the Council’s saƟsfacƟon. Page 128
Page 129
3 3.2. Despite the above, Moray Council have stated they will further reject the proposal because they consider the proposed garage plan to be out of keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area and because it does not easily integrate into the site and surrounding area given its height and bulk. 3.3. I wish to reiterate that I would work with the Council to ensure the scale and character of the garage/workshop suitably integrates into the site to meet their requirements. Clearly however, there would be a minimum size needed to ensure the building has sufficient floorspace to store equipment and vehicles, provide suitable space to work on the car as well as afford adequate height to accommodate a car ramp. For example a one car sized garage would be of no use. 3.2. SITE LOCATION. The Council have objected to the application due to the site being remote from the dwelling (separated by an access track). This is exactly why it is so perfect for my requirements and is the only location within my grounds that provides a key advantage. As explained in my original Supporting Statement, a major factor for the selection of the site is that, being remote from the house and next to the road, I could retain the garage should my wife and I need to downsize at some point in the future. Without this flexibility I would have to restart the process of finding somewhere to keep and work on my race car if we were forced to move due to age/health, thereby incurring additional expense as well as facing the logistical problem of where to keep the equipment during the transition. Not wishing to go into personal detail, my wife is the most likely of the two of us to need to downsize in the future which is exactly why this location would be so ideal to enable me to continue participating in motorsport. 4. APPLICATION OF POLICY 4.1. As stated in the introducƟon I understand that Moray Council are limited by both NaƟonal and Local Policy. However I feel their applicaƟon of this policy is harsh given my circumstances. 4.2. Policy is not law, it is a course or principle of acƟon adopted by an organizaƟon or individual. It thereby affords the organisaƟon an element of flexibility with respect to its applicaƟon. From my perspecƟve it is unmerited for policy to be so rigidly enforced that conservaƟon of a patch of ground that contains nothing but decaying ferns, gorse bushes, and a few saplings aƩracts a higher degree of protecƟon than the welfare and happiness of the individual who owns it and lives there. I have worked hard all my life and am now in a posiƟon to fulfil a reƟrement dream. 4.3. As described in my original SupporƟng Statement, given the demand for property in the area and knowing that other parties were interested in purchasing the house, I researched the possibility of building a garage on this site as much as time permitted; any additional delay would have jeopardised the opportunity to buy the property. I had no reason to suspect that what appeared to be an ideal location for a garage/workshop had originally been woodland since no trees were present, let alone it carrying a designation of Ancient Woodland, especially as I was made aware planning permission had been granted for a dwelling to be built on adjoining ground. Page 129
Page 130
4 4.4. Should this appeal be rejected it does not simply prevent me from building a garage/workshop, it compromises one of the very reasons I decided to buy the house and associated land thereby destroying my retirement dream; I really do not have any other options. I therefore write a hearƞelt appeal to the Local Review Board to consider the circumstances I faced when buying this property, my reasons for doing so and to put themselves in my posiƟon. I would like to think the Review Board will make a decision based on the outcome individual members would hope for if they faced similar circumstances rather than dogmaƟcally apply policy as if it were a law that cannot be broken. Thank you for your consideraƟon, Applicant Page 130
Page 131
1 SECOND ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING STATEMENT 30 December 2024 Change of use of woodland to garden ground to permit the erecƟon of a domesƟc garage workshop at Beulah, Garmouth, Proposal Ref: 100687032-001 1. EXISTING GARAGE 1.1. Further to my AddiƟonal SupporƟng Statement dated 27 November 2024, I would like to add some details on the exisƟng garage facility at Beulah. I feel this would be helpful to illustrate why I am requesƟng permission to build a suitable garage/workshop facility. 1.2. The current garage at Beulah came with the purchase of the property. It is an old structure that appears to be made up from an old house (Alma CoƩage) with an addiƟonal area aƩached at the rear. 1.3. The garage is inadequate for several reasons. Please refer to the aƩached photographs which illustrate the following points. 1.3.1 First it floods during periods of heavy or persistent rain. This is a major problem since valuable items are being ruined. For example my expensive tools are starƟng to rust. 1.3.2. Secondly, the roof is not high enough to be able to install a ramp. This is an essenƟal piece of equipment since the engine can only be removed from underneath the race car. 1.3.3. Thirdly the floor space is insufficient. I have a number of pieces of garage equipment that I need to access on a regular basis, numerous spares to store and the need for a ‘clean’ area to service and build items such as engine and gearbox. The aƩached photographs show how cramped and inadequate the current area is. 1.3.4. Fourthly, the structure is old and roƫng. In parƟcular the walls of the original house are made of Ɵmber. It will need to be demolished some Ɵme in the near future. I have nowhere else to store all my race/garage equipment in the interim. 1.4 I trust the above adds further informaƟon as to why this garage/workshop proposal is of such personal importance and is more than just a casual applicaƟon. Applicant Page 131
Page 132
Page 132
Page 133
2 Page 133
Page 134
3 Page 134
Page 135
4 Page 135
Page 136
5 Page 136
Page 137
Page 137
Page 138
Page 138