Item 6c - DC22245FUL Erection of dwellinghouse Former Ferry Dyke Canal House
West Dunbartonshire Council · 7 August 2024
Back to Planning Committee — 7 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Planning Committee: 7th August 2024 DC22/245/FUL: Formation of a dwellinghouse with the re-establishment of the derelict Ferrydykes cottage into a family home, involving the renovation of the existing property inclusive of the construction of a dormer and extension to the rear together with associated works at Former Ferry Dyke Canal House, Portpatrick Road, Old Kilpatrick by Mr Farhat Malik 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application is subject to an objection from a statutory consultee. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, the application therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 9. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 The application site is located on the southern side of the Forth and Clyde Canal adjacent to Portpatrick Road in Old Kilpatrick and extends to approximately 1158 sqm. The site’s northern boundary is onto the tow path which runs alongside the canal. There is a more informal path to the western boundary which links the tow path (Core path 110) with Core Path 166. The site sits within an area of tree cover which is designated as open space within the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2. 3.2 Currently on site there is the remnants of what was Ferry Dyke Canal House (also known as Ferrydykes Cottage). The building has sat empty for a number of years and in addition, has been set alight on two occasions as stated within the supporting statement submitted as part of the application. The majority of the roof is missing with vegetation growing within various places in the building’s interior. Vegetation has also penetrated the remaining stonework. The building is not capable of being occupied in its current form and the extent of the works required to the building would go beyond repair and reinstatement. They would be more akin to a complete rebuilding of the structure. As such, what remains on site is a ruin with the previous use considered to be abandoned. Accordingly, the structure can no longer be classed as a dwelling in terms of Planning. The site has re-naturalised over time and is now covered with areas of dense vegetation and a variety of immature and trees. A number of more mature trees also surround the former cottage. 3.3 Planning permission is sought to reinstate the two and a half storey dwellinghouse, including an extension beyond the original footprint to the rear as well as a porch to the front. In addition, it is proposed to extend the curtilage of the property to the east and south in order to provide garden grounds for Ferrydykes Cottage. ITEM 6c
Page 2
3.4 The extension proposed to the rear of the property is single storey in height, projecting 5.6m from the rear of building and measure 6.4m in width. The proposed porch projects 1.9m from the principal elevation of the property and measures 2m. Within the newly constructed roof, two dormer windows are proposed to the rear of the building. In terms of window and door openings, to the rear a new door opening at the ground floor level is proposed, which will allow for the newly created terrace above the single storey extension to be accessed. One new window opening is to be created at ground floor level on the east elevation. 3.5 Proposed material finishes are not detailed within the plans but are noted within the supporting statement as white render for the external walls, natural slate for the roof, slate coloured zinc dormer windows, cast iron rainwater goods and timber sash and case windows fronting the towpath. 3.6 The proposed floorplans show a lounge, kitchen and bedroom 1 at the lower ground floor level and a lounge, bathroom and bedroom 2 at ground floor level. Bedrooms 3 and 4 are shown at the attic level. Within the proposed garden grounds a patio is shown to the rear of the property with a lawn and large pond within the garden grounds. Bin storage and a shed are also shown to the south of the property, but no details have been provided of the shed. 3.7 Due to the location of the Ferrydykes Cottage on the opposite side of the Canal to Portpatrick Road, no parking has been provided within the red line boundary. As part of the application process the applicant and their agent have investigated alternative parking solutions and have proposed the lease of one of the garage sites on Portpatrick Road in order to provide space for one car to be parked off-street. 3.8 The site is located between Core Path 110 and Core Path 166, adjacent to the course of the Antonine Wall, within an area designated as part of both the adopted Local Plan and proposed Local Development Plan 2 as open space and within close proximity to the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area. 3.9 In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a range of supporting documentation and information including a Design Supporting Statement, Tree Report and Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service initially requested that off street parking be provided. The applicant has indicated that they are able to secure the use of an adjacent site on Portpatrick Road to which the Roads Service have confirmed would be acceptable if it this was secured in perpetuity. In addition, a condition relating to a construction programme are recommended in order to ensure there is no unacceptable impact on the public road. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service (Flooding) initially requested that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) be submitted. Upon review of the Flood Risk Assessment there are no objections on flood risk grounds. 4.3 West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service recommend the addition of conditions relating to the presence of any previously unexpected contamination and the re-use of site won material or import of material to any granting of permission. 4.4 West Dunbartonshire Council Biodiversity Officer welcomes that the Preliminary Ecological Assessment demonstrates there is no impact on protected species. Time
Page 3
constraints noted for site clearance due to bird breeding season and overwintering birds within the Special Protection Area. The Preliminary Ecological Assessment does not consider the distance to the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area to have significant impact however NatureScot’s response does consider the development proposal as having likely significant effect on the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area. All mitigation instructed by NatureScot would need therefore to be conditioned. 4.5 In terms of biodiversity onsite – there is proposed tree loss and no details have been provided showing trees lost and retained (or mitigation for safeguarding trees to be retained through the construction phase). There is no biodiversity enhancement of the site demonstrated and nothing has been offered in terms of trees replaced (mitigation) or indeed any enhancements, or landscaping plans. There is mention of a biodiversity pond in the design statement, but no plans have been given for this. 4.6 Scottish Water has no objection to the application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. 4.7 NatureScot recommend that the proposal can be progressed with appropriate mitigation. Due to works within 40m of the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area boundary, mitigation measures would be to include conditions that ensure either works are undertaken within a specific timeframe or that noise barrier are used. 4.8 Historic Environment Scotland consider that the repair, consolidation, and conversion would help ensure the long-term survival of a structure that is of historical interest in relation to the use and function of the Forth and Clyde Canal. The proposed extensions are considered to be appropriate. In relation to the Antonine Wall and fort designations, HES would be content that the proposals would not have a negative impact on the setting of either the world heritage site or scheduled monument. 4.9 Scottish Canals (British Waterways Scotland) support the appropriate reuse and development of the former Ferry Dyke Canal House and the associated regeneration of the surrounding site. It is noted that all interfaces with the canal, including construction methodologies adjacent to the canal structure, with require the Scottish Canals Third Party Works approval. In addition Scottish Canals feel that it would be appropriate for the applicant to review suitable access routes and submit an appropriate method statement. 4.10 Scottish Environment Protection Agency initially submitted a holding objection to the application and requested that further information be provided. Once this information was provided and following a re-consultation, SEPA objected in principle to the application and recommended that planning permission should be refused. This is because the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding, which is contrary to the duties se out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National Planning Framework 4. 5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 A letter of support has been received from the Old Kilpatrick Community Council. The full details are contained within the planning file and are available for public viewing. However, the points raised can be summarised as follows: • The Community Council are delighted to hear that the building is to be brought back into use as a home. • For some years it has been a blight on the canal and a regular target for vandals.
Page 4
• The proposal should be no different from other developments south of the canal, in particular the Marine Technology Park and other proposed development at Bowling. • The Community Council want to restate their support for the proposal and hope that it encourages further development in this historic part of the village. The concerns raised shall be assessed in the Section 7 below. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 Policy 1 relates to tackling the climate and nature crises and states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 2 also relates to the climate in the form of climate mitigation and adaptation and states development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Policy 3’s intent is to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 6.2 Policy 7 relates to historic assets and places. As the site is adjacent to the Antonine Wall, the Forth and Clyde Canal and the building is on the Buildings at Risk Register, part h) relating to development proposals affecting scheduled monuments, part l) development proposals affecting a World Heritage Site or its setting and part n) development proposals which sensitively repair, enhance and bring historic buildings, as identified as being at risk locally or on the national Buildings at Risk Register are all applicable. Overall Policy 7’s intent is to protect and enhance the historic environment assets and places and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 6.3 As the site has been previously developed, Policy 9 addressing brownfield, vacant and derelict land applies. Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. 6.4 Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale as per Policy 14. 6.5 Policy 16 relates to quality homes. Part (f) states that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan will only be supported in limited circumstances where: the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods; and the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. 6.6 Green infrastructure is considered through Policy 20. Proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. 6.7 Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management states that proposals will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and seek to
Page 5
minimise the area of impermeable surface. The application site is within an area at risk of flooding and the proposal does not fall into any of the exemptions set out within the Policy. 6.8 The proposed development is not supported by all policies of NPF4 and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.9 Policy UR1 encourages the redevelopment and re-use of underused, vacant and/or derelict land and buildings for appropriate uses such as housing. Policy RD1 give preference to residential development on brownfield sites within the urban area rather than on greenfield land. 6.10 Policy H4 sets out standards expected of residential development, requiring high quality design in the range of house types and sizes and in terms of form, layout and materials. Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area. 6.11 Under Policy R1 there is a presumption against development which adversely affects the use, character or amenity of functional and valuable open space. Policy R2 specifies the open space provision required for all developments. Assessment of open space requirements has been undertaken against the more updated “Our Green Network” Planning Guidance (2015) in Section 7 below. Policy R4 relates to the Forth and Clyde Canal and adjacent areas. Policy R4F states that wherever possible development should be oriented towards and integrate with the canal, overlook the canal to provide a supervised edge and provide direct access to the existing canal side paths. Policy R5 protects Core Paths and Rights of Way and Policy GN1 promotes and protects the Green Network including core paths. 6.12 Policy E1 relates to the Council’s biodiversity duty and Policy E2B relates to National Nature Conservation sites which includes the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area (SPA). Development that affects such areas will only be permitted in certain circumstances. Policy E5 requires new development proposals to consider impacts on trees and incorporate suitable tree planting. Policies F1 and F2 aim to ensure that new development is not at risk from, and does not increase the risk of flooding, and has suitable SUDS drainage infrastructure. There is a general presumption against development within the flood plain. The up-to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. 6.13 Policy BE3 relates to derelict/vacant buildings and notes that the Council will encourage and support the renovation rather than demolition of derelict properties which are not listed but are considered to contribute to the townscape character of the surrounding area. Under Policy BE5 the council will resist any development proposal that would have an adverse impact on or affect the setting of a scheduled monument or upon other nationally or locally important archaeological sites. Policy BE6B outlines that there will be a presumption against development within the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Antonine Wall) World Heritage Site buffer zones which would have an adverse impact on the Site and its setting. 6.14 The proposal generally complies with the policies of the adopted local plan although is contrary to the precautionary approach in respect of flooding and is assessed fully in Section 7 below.
Page 6
7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 7.2 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that all new development will be expected to contribute towards creating successful places by having regard to the six qualities of a successful place (distinctive, adaptable, resource efficient, easy to get to/move around, safe and pleasant, and welcoming). Policy CP2 requires the integration and consideration of green infrastructure from the outset of the design process through to its maintenance and stewardship of the resource. 7.3 Policy H4 relates to residential amenity. The policy states that the Council will protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas at all times. 7.4 Under policy FCC1 development alongside the Forth & Clyde Canal should enhance this green network asset. Policy BE1 states that where development would adversely affect a scheduled monument or the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument, permission would only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances. Policy AW1 relates to the Antonine wall and notes that development that would have an adverse impact on the Antonine Wall or its setting will not be permitted. 7.5 Policy GI1 relates to safeguarding open space and outdoor sports facilities and states that development which would result in the loss of open space which is, or has the potential to be, of quality and value will not be permitted unless provision of additional open space of equal or enhanced quality and value is provided within the development site or its vicinity. Policies GI2 and GI4 relate to green infrastructure. Policy GI2 requires new development to meet with the open space standards set out within the policy. Where a development has difficulty providing these standards on site, or where a relaxation of the standards can be justified, developers will require to accord with Policy GI4 and provide a contribution towards the types of projects outlined within the policy and detailed in the Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance. GI4 sets out the requirements for Developer contributions. 7.6 Policies ENV1, ENV4, and ENV6 are all similar to the ecology and tree, water environment and flooding policies of the adopted Local Plan, although in respect of flooding, the up-to-date development plan position is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which has primacy. Policy ENV5 aims to protect and improves the quality and enjoyment of the water environment. 7.7 CON3 encourages improvements to core paths and the development of new core paths and Policy CON4 sets out a need for all developments to install sufficient broadband provisions.
Page 7
7.8 It is considered that the application proposal being assessed generally complies with the relevant policies above, although it is contrary to the precautionary approach in respect of flooding as set out in the following assessment. Creating Places Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance 7.9 The Creating Places Supplementary Guidance – November 2022 seeks to achieve high quality development with a design led approach based on a thorough appraisal of the site and an analysis of its context and sets out that this is expected for all development proposals. The proposal has been informed by a comprehensive pre- application as encourage by the Guidance. This has resulted in a development proposal that achieves a high-quality design that responds to the local context and accords with the approach set out in the Guidance. 7.10 The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance - November 2022 seeks to ensure that the proposal also integrates landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the setting of the new development and open space created. This will include a focus on biodiversity enhancement. The on-site provision follows the Guidance in respect of residential development proposals. The open space also integrates with the wider green network adjacent inclusive of pathway connections. The proposal accords with the approach set out in the Guidance. Principle of Development 7.11 The site is a brownfield site adjacent to a well-established residential area but is not specifically identified in either the adopted Local Plan the proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) as a residential development opportunity. Whilst not identified as a development opportunity, the sustainable re-use of brownfield land is supported through Policy 9 of NPF4. Policy 16 also supports that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing where they are supported by an agreed timescale for build-out and that the proposal is for is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. Whilst identified as open space, the application site is considered to be within the settlement boundary of Old Kilpatrick. A timescale for the build-out can be addressed via condition. 7.12 The proposal to redevelop underused and vacant land is also supported by Policy UR1 of the Local Plan together with Policy RD1 which sets out a preference for residential development on brownfield sites. 7.13 In addition, Policy 16 supports development proposals which sensitively repair, enhance and bring historic buildings, as identified as being at risk locally or on the national Buildings at Risk Register, back into beneficial use. The building has been on the register since September of 2021 and is classed as being in the “moderate” category of risk. 7.14 As such, the principle of the development of the site for new housing is supported on this site and it rests to consider whether there are any material planning considerations or site constraints which suggest that the proposal would not be acceptable. Site Layout, Design and Appearance 7.15 New developments require to be well designed, take cognisance of the setting into which they are introduced and provide a high-quality appearance. Whilst the use of a dwellinghouse has ceased on site, the ruins of the building have remained on site. As such, a building in this location is well established. The proposal sets out to reinstate what would have been previously in place in terms of the porch on the front of the cottage. The existence of the porch can be seen within the historic photos submitted as part of the supporting statement. As such the front of the proposal, which is onto
Page 8
the tow path is designed to reflect what was once in existence. The newer elements of the proposal, including the dormer windows, extension and raised terrace are all located to the rear. They are proportionate to the existing cottage and well designed in relation to the building. 7.16 The current curtilage of the Ferrydykes Cottage is small in size. With the desire for this property to be a family home the applicant has sought to extend this in order to provide a larger garden for the property. The sale of the adjacent land has been agreed by the Infrastructure, Regeneration and Economic Development Committee on 17th August 2022. 7.17 Turning to the proposed materials, the new house will be finished externally in white render and a slate roof. The use of such materials would provide a high-quality visual appearance and be a positive addition to the wider development. Historic photos also indicate that the building previously was finished in a light-coloured render. 7.18 Overall, it is considered that the proposal will create a well-designed development which will address the six qualities of successful places by having a distinctive identity, form safe streets and use high quality materials, all complying with policies GD1, DS1 and CP1 of the adopted and proposed Plans alongside the Residential Development Design Guidance. Trees, landscaping and open space 7.19 A variety of trees exist within the site. Whilst these are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and many will have self-seeded, they are within designated open space. Whilst it is accepted that some trees will be required to be removed to accommodate the development, no details have been provided showing trees, trees retained or mitigation for safeguarding trees to be retained through the construction phase. Any granting of permission should include a condition which would require further information to be submitted in order to minimise the tree loss as part of the development. In addition, no landscaping plans have been provided. However a pond has been included within the plans and noted within the supporting statement. Landscaping details can be addressed by condition if required. 7.20 As noted, the ground in which the site sits, as well as the ground into which the garden is to be extended into is designated as open space within both the adopted and proposed plans. Policy GI1 of LDP2 states that development which would result in the loss of open space which is, or has the potential to be, of quality and value will not be permitted unless provision of additional open space of equal or enhanced quality and value is provided within the development site or its vicinity. Through previous correspondence as part of the sale of the land, it has been stated that this particular part of the open space is not of particular quality or value. As such the garden grounds extending into this area is acceptable. 7.21 Policy R2 of the adopted Local Plan advises on open space standards for new development with Policies GI2 and GI4 of proposed LDP2 providing the up-to-date position. Any development of new dwellings, even if small scale will be expected to provide a contribution towards the cost of providing or improving green infrastructure in the area. Policy GI4 of proposed LDP2 advises that developer contributions will apply in a number of circumstances including smaller sites of less than 10 units where provision of green infrastructure is not possible. Further details are set out in the Council’s Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance 2022. In the event the proposal was otherwise acceptable, a contribution to open space would be expected.
Page 9
Parking 7.22 Due to its location the site does not have access for parking to be associated with the proposed dwellinghouse within the red line boundary. The Roads Service provided a consultation which requested off street parking to be provided. The agent and applicant have secured the possibility of a lease from the Council for a site on Portpatrick Road which would allow for one car parking space to be provided. The Roads Service have confirmed that this would be an acceptable approach. A condition is recommended for any granting of permission to ensure that for as long as the dwellinghouse is occupied, off street parking is provided on Portpatrick Road. Given the applicant does not, at the time of writing, own the land where parking could potentially be provided, this requirement could not be addressed by condition. However, a legal agreement involving all parties could potentially be used in the event that planning permission was to be granted. Ecology 7.23 The proposed site is within 40m of the Inner Clyde Special Protection Area (SPA) boundary. As such NatureScot were consulted. NatureScot have no objections to the proposal subject to a condition being added to any granting of permission which ensures that appropriate mitigation is put in place in order to protect the overwintering birds within the SPA. This would mean that either the works required would either need to be undertaken within a specific timeframe or a noise barrier would have to be used. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has also commented that time constraints for works would be required for breeding birds also. 7.24 The preliminary ecological appraisal does not highlight any protected species of concern. Whilst the area may support foraging bats, no further surveys are required. Recommendations are contained within the preliminary ecological appraisal including making contractors aware of best practice and root protection areas for trees. This could be addressed by condition. Historic Environment 7.25 Whilst the building is not listed, it does sit adjacent to the Forth and Clyde Canal which is a scheduled monument and also within close proximity to the course of the Antonine Wall and an associated fort. As such Historic Environment Scotland were consulted. Historic Environment Scotland support the proposal to repair, consolidate and covert the building in order to ensure it long-term survival and it’s historical interest in relation to the use and function of the canal. In addition, Historic Environment Scotland considered that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the settling of the Antonine Wall which is a world heritage site. Scottish Canals also support the appropriate reuse and development of the property and associate regeneration of the surrounding site. Scottish Canals recommended that any granting of permission should condition third party works approval. 7.26 Overall it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the policies relating to the historic environment, the Forth and Clyde Canal and the Antonine Wall that are contained within NPF4, the adopted Local Development Plan and the proposed Local Development Plan 2. Residential Amenity 7.27 It has been some time since the proposed site has been utilised as a residential site. However, due to its location on the opposite side of the road and canal from any nearby residential properties, as well as the scale and massing being retained from the original building it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon
Page 10
residential amenity. It has been stated within the supporting statement that the site has become an area which is associated with anti-social behaviour. Bringing Ferrydykes Cottage back into use would have a positive impact upon this with natural surveillance created by an inhabited dwellinghouse. This would have a positive impact upon the area. Flooding and drainage 7.28 With respect to flooding and drainage, SEPA were consulted on the application. SEPA requested further details to be submitted and the Council’s Roads Service requested a Flood Risk Assessment. The agent for the application provided the details requested. Following a reconsultation, the Council’s Road’s Service offered no further objection. . SEPA have, however, stated that the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding and as such object in principle to the proposal. 7.29 Policy 22 of NPF4 sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in certain circumstances. These include for essential infrastructure, for water compatible uses, for development of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use; or for the redevelopment of previously used sites in built up areas where the LDP has identified a need to bring these into positive use and where proposals demonstrate that long-term safety and resilience can be secured in accordance with relevant SEPA advice. The development does not fit into the definitions of essential infrastructure of a water compatible use as defined within NPF4. In addition, whilst there is general support for the development of previously used site and derelict sites, the site itself is not identified within the adopted Local Plan or proposed LDP2 as one to be brought into positive use. 7.30 It therefore rests to consider whether the proposal would result in the development of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use (as defined by SEPA guidance). Whilst the site has been previously used as a dwellinghouse, the building has fallen into disrepair and is no longer capable of being occupied as a dwellinghouse in its current form. In considering whether this results in the use being abandoned, the current condition of the building is as a result of a fire. Little remains of the interior, and the majority of the roof is missing, exposing the building to the elements. Vegetation is growing in various places within the building’s interior and has penetrated the stonework. Given the condition, the works to the building go beyond repair and reinstatement, they would constitute a rebuilding of the structure and the current physical condition would give the impression that the use had been abandoned. There has been no occupation of the building since two fires which are understood to have occurred soon after the applicant purchased the property in 2006. There is no evidence of any substantive repairs or works to prevent the buildings further deterioration. No planning application was submitted to reinstate the fire damaged property immediately following the fires. Given the above, it can be reasonably concluded that the use of the building as a dwellinghouse has been abandoned and the proposal would amount to a new dwellinghouse. The use as a dwellinghouse is therefore more vulnerable that its current state as a ruin. Whilst mitigation measures have been provided as part of the development, Policy 22 does not give allowances for such mitigation. As such it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 22 of NPF4. 7.31 It is acknowledged that policies in NPF4 requires to be read and applied as a whole and that conflicts between policies are normal and to be expected. On whether the conflict with Policy 22 could, on balance, be accepted, the assessment is guided by the consultation response from SEPA. SEPA are clear that to show the development is not at risk of flooding, the footprint of the building would need to be set at least 5.29m
Page 11
above ordnance datum (AOD) and the finished floor levels require to be set 5.89mAOD. Setting the finished floor levels at 4.95mAOD would result in the proposed development being at risk of flooding, Information provided, along with the River Clyde Model, indicates that the property could be surrounded by flood water to a depth of 0.34m. SEPA advise this would be a dangerous situation which would put the people who occupy it at risk. As the proposal does not meet an exemption set out within Policy 22 of NPF4, SEPA advise that flood mitigation measures are not a suitable option to allow development to progress. SEPA further highlight concerns regarding same access and egress to the site during a flood event. Furthermore, SEPA also highlight that the expanded footprint of the proposed development, in comparison to the current one, may affect floodplain capacity and increase flood risk for others. Accordingly, SEPA object in principle to the proposal. 7.32 The proposal would result in the re-development of a derelict building adjacent to the Canal with an appropriate design and appearance, and this would bring a variety of benefits. Notwithstanding this, the flood risk concerns set out in the objection by SEPA in their objection are clear and it is not considered that these, and the failure for the proposal to comply with the requirements of Policy 22 of NPF4, can be outweighed by the benefits resulting from the development. Representations 7.33 One letter of support was received from the Community Council which states their support for the development with the hope that it encourages further development in this historic part of the village. The Community Council further confirm that the property has been a target for vandals in recent years. Questions have been raised as to why the possibility of flooding has affected this proposal but not other developments south of the canal. It should however be noted that a dwellinghouse is considered to be a “highly vulnerable use” by SEPA in contrast to the Marine Technology Park which is a less vulnerable non-residential use and also considered to be a water compatible use in terms of the exemptions set out within Policy 22 of NPF4. Pre-application Consultation 7.34 A pre-application enquiry was submitted under reference PREAPP22/071 in which advice was given relating to the site and requirements which would need to be demonstrated as part of any planning application. No advice was given in relation to the policies contained within NPF4 as this was not adopted until February of 2023. 8 CONCLUSION 8.1 It is accepted that the proposal would bring back into use a vacant and derelict building which is also on the Buildings at Risk Register. Whilst the building itself is not listed, it has historical context with being the bridge keeper’s cottage, adjacent to the scheduled monument that is the Forth and Clyde Canal. It has been suggested through the supporting documents that the area has been problematic for anti-social behaviour and that the bringing back into use of the cottage would create natural surveillance to discourage this. The proposed materials proposed are of high quality and the design is appropriate to the building and its surroundings. 8.2 However, the application site sits within an area which is at risk of flooding. As such Policy 22 of NPF4 applies. This policy only supports development within such areas in certain circumstances, none of which apply to this site as the previous use as a dwellinghouse has been abandoned. Through consultation, SEPA have objected in principle to the proposal stating that the proposed development is expected to put people or property at risk of flooding, which is contrary to the duties set out under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, and the policy principles of National
Page 12
Planning Framework 4. This concern is not outweighed by the potential benefits of the development. The application proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 22 of NPF4. 9. REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The site sits within an area which is at risk of flooding and the proposal is not for essential infrastructure, is not a water compatible use, does not involve the redevelopment of an existing use building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use due to the any previous use of a dwellinghouse having been abandoned and is not a site for the redevelopment of previously used sites in built up areas where the Local Development Plan has identified a need to bring these into positive use and where proposals demonstrate that long-term safety and resilience can be secured in accordance with relevant SEPA advice. The proposal would place people and property at risk of flooding and as such the proposal is not in accordance with Policy 22 of NPF4. Alan Douglas Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 7th August 2024 Person to Contact: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. Representations 3. Consultation responses 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 7. Creating Places Guidance (2022) 8. Green Network and Green Infrastructure Supplementary Guidance (2022) Wards affected: Ward 6 (Clydebank Waterfront)