Argyll and Bute Council Development Services Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 15/03005/LIB Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Houses for Heroes Scotland and the Chrystal Trust Proposal: Partial demolition of listed boundary wall to facilitate construction of vehicular access Site Address: Land East Of Shira Lodge, Main Road, Cardross _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT No 2 A) INTRODUCTION This report advises Members of additional representations both objecting to and in support of this application together with further comments from the applicants’ agent and Cardross Community Council. B) ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS Additional representations have been received from individuals both objecting to and supporting the proposals. Given the numbers involved these are listed in the Appendix of this report. No new issues have been raised in the submissions. C) APPLICANTS’ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The Applicants’ agent has submitted additional comments via e-mail dated 21 January 2016. These comments and the response to them is set out below. 1. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states that it is a material consideration that carries significant weight, but that it is for the decision maker to determine the appropriate weight in each case. Comment: Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a non-statutory document. It identifies the primacy of the development plan stating that planning should be plan-led. It further states that the aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost. Whilst the SPP and the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be material considerations it makes clear that for proposals that do not accord with up-to-date development plans the primacy of the plan is maintained.
65
Embed
Partial demolition of listed boundary wall to facilitate ...€¦ · of this report. No new issues have been raised in the submissions. C) APPLICANTS’ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS . The
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Argyll and Bute Council Development Services
Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 15/03005/LIB Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Houses for Heroes Scotland and the Chrystal Trust Proposal: Partial demolition of listed boundary wall to facilitate construction of vehicular access Site Address: Land East Of Shira Lodge, Main Road, Cardross _________________________________________________________________________
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT No 2 A) INTRODUCTION
This report advises Members of additional representations both objecting to and in support of this application together with further comments from the applicants’ agent and Cardross Community Council.
B) ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS Additional representations have been received from individuals both objecting to and supporting the proposals. Given the numbers involved these are listed in the Appendix of this report. No new issues have been raised in the submissions.
C) APPLICANTS’ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The Applicants’ agent has submitted additional comments via e-mail dated 21 January 2016. These comments and the response to them is set out below.
1. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states that it is a material consideration that carries significant weight, but that it is for the decision maker to determine the appropriate weight in each case.
Comment: Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a non-statutory document. It identifies the primacy of the development plan stating that planning should be plan-led. It further states that the aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost. Whilst the SPP and the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be material considerations it makes clear that for proposals that do not accord with up-to-date development plans the primacy of the plan is maintained.
The SPP emphasises the importance of greenbelt particularly in directing development to more appropriate sites. It states that Planning Authorities should consider the re-use or re-development of brownfield land before new development takes place on greenfield sites. Within the greenbelt appropriate development may include: development associated with agriculture, including the reuse of historic agricultural buildings; development associated with woodland and forestry, including community woodlands; horticulture, including market gardening and directly connected retailing; recreational uses that are compatible with an agricultural or natural setting; essential infrastructure such as digital communications infrastructure and electricity grid connections; development meeting a national requirement or established need, if no other suitable site is available; and intensification of established uses subject to the new development being of a suitable scale and form. The assessment against policy and other material considerations is set out in the main report. Since Members refused the previous proposal the only significant changes that have taken place further support the Council’s position. Reporters have assessed the Local Development Plan including the issue of the Chrystal Trust’s land at Cardross. The Reporters reconfirmed the status of the land as greenbelt and endorsed the approach adopted by the Council i.e. the landscape review by Ironside Farr which recognised the importance of this area of greenbelt. In terms of the need for additional land for housing, this issue was also considered by the Reporters. They had looked at the 2013 Housing Land Audit and concluded that the 5 year effective housing land supply of 4946 comfortably exceeded the plans requirement for 3725 houses. They also looked at the record of housing completions over the previous 5 years and noted that the majority had been from sites with in settlements and also from windfall sites and that this provided significant additional re-assurance regarding the adequacy of the housing allocations in the plan even though a proposed allocation at Geilston Farm in Cardross was deleted. Finally, the key material consideration is the previous decision to refuse. In conjunction with the SPP and SHEP it is considered they support the strong policy regime against this proposal. 2. There is reference to SPP policy as it relates to specialist forms of housing
including considering the needs of service personnel. The Council has identified a 5 year housing land supply but would suggest this is different albeit linked to specialist needs housing.
Comment: The Housing Need and Demand Assessment Final Report Revised April 2011 was used to identify the housing need and inform the Housing Land Supply Targets which were used in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. The Housing Need and Demand Assessment was approved as robust and credible by the Scottish Governments Centre for Housing Market Analysis. The document also formed one of the core documents which was considered by the Reporters when they were looking at the adequacy of the housing allocations in the Local Development Plan, where they confirmed that there was no need to identify additional sites for housing allocations including the current application site.
Chapter 8 of the study addresses the housing requirements of specific housing groups including older people; persons with physical disabilities; persons with learning difficulties; persons with mental health issues; families, including lone parents; ethnic minority and/or hard-to-reach groups, including Gypsies/Travellers; and homeless households, including vulnerable young adults leaving care and persons fleeing domestic violence or abuse. Reference to the housing requirements of armed forces personnel as made in para 134 of the SPP is made in the context of addressing needs for houses in multiple occupation, and the HNDA took this into consideration. In the context of Faslane, the MoD have only recently completed a massive expansion of barracks accommodation on the base, and there are empty surplus MoD housing on their developments at Rhu/Helensburgh. In addition former housing allocation sites on MoD owned land at Rhu and Shandon although no longer specifically identified as housing allocations remain within the respective settlement boundaries and LDP policy would support “windfall” housing development on these. 3. In the original report relating to development that may be appropriate in a
greenbelt. However, this is not followed up by any assessment as to how the proposed development relates to this. We say there is a national requirement and an established need for veterans’ housing in Cardross and no other suitable sites is available.
Comment: The application has been assessed against policy and found to be contrary to development plan policy. In terms of other material considerations these support the strong policy presumption against the development of this important space. It is considered that there is an established need for housing for veterans. The issue is whether this forms the basis for encroachment in to the greenbelt and a departure from the development plan. In the applicants’ supporting planning statement they assess a number of allocated sites and dismiss each. For example, in 6 of the sites they say that it is unlikely that the owners/developers would be interested in donating land for veterans housing. This isn’t considered sufficient to justify a major departure from greenbelt policy. Before we could even consider greenbelt release we would need more solid information from the applicants that these and other allocated sites were not available. As indicated above, land for housing was considered by Reporters who decided the 5 year effective housing land supply was more than sufficient to meet all needs including special needs. Avant Homes who are seeking to develop Kirkton Farm, one of the LDP’s allocations, have indicated that they would be willing to accommodate disabled veterans’ housing as part of their affordable provision. The MoD have only recently completed a massive expansion of barracks accommodation at Faslane and there are empty surplus MoD housing on their developments at Rhu/Helensburgh. In addition former housing allocation sites on MoD owned land at Rhu and Shandon although no longer specifically identified as housing allocations remain within the respective settlement boundaries and LDP policy would support “windfall” housing development on these. Based on the above, it is considered that the established need for veterans’ housing could be met through the development strategy in the LDP and that incursion into the greenbelt could not be justified. 4. Finally, and in terms of the historic environment, Councillors should be made
aware of two points. Point 1 is that SHEP makes clear at para 1.8 that “The protection of the historic environment is not about preventing change. Ministers believe that change in this dynamic environment should be managed intelligently
and with understanding, to achieve the best outcome for the historic environment and for the people of Scotland. Such decisions often have to recognize economic realities.” Point 2 is that we will continue to argue that the proposed development at least ‘preserves’ in the sense of causing no harm to the historic environment, and in many respects will be an enhancement to the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, at the end of the day, this comes down to subjective opinion, and we leave that with Councillors to decide.
Comment: The application site has significant amenity value in the immediate area and wider setting of Cardross. The proposed development will result in the loss of this important area of greenbelt, which occupies a prominent position within the locality and which is important to the setting of adjoining listed buildings and a scheduled ancient monument. The proposal also involves the removal of a 10 metre wide section of listed wall which helps define this part of the conservation area. The loss of the wall and this green space and their replacement with two dwellings dwellings, access road, hardstanding, fences and other associated suburban development will be visually intrusive, visually discordant and will not preserve or enhance the character of the area. This was previously accepted by elected Members in assessing the previous applications for the same site. The only changes since the proposal was originally considered have served to strengthen the policy case against the development. The applicants have also asked that an extract from Scottish Planning Policy be included for Members’ information. SPP Extract 49. For most settlements, a green belt is not necessary as other policies can provide an appropriate basis for directing development to the right locations. However, where the planning authority considers it appropriate, the development plan may designate a green belt around a city or town to support the spatial strategy by: • directing development to the most appropriate locations and supporting regeneration; • protecting and enhancing the character, landscape setting and identity of the settlement; and • protecting and providing access to open space. 50. In developing the spatial strategy, planning authorities should identify the most sustainable locations for longer-term development and, where necessary, review the boundaries of any greenbelt. 51. The spatial form of the green belt should be appropriate to the location. It may encircle a settlement or take the shape of a buffer, corridor, strip or wedge. Local development plans should show the detailed boundary of any green belt, giving consideration to: • excluding existing settlements and major educational and research uses, major businesses and industrial operations, airports and Ministry of Defence establishments; • the need for development in smaller settlements within the green belt, where appropriate leaving room for expansion; • redirecting development pressure to more suitable locations; and • establishing clearly identifiable visual boundary markers based on landscape features such as rivers, tree belts, railways or main roads. Hedges and field enclosures will rarely provide a sufficiently robust boundary.
52. Local development plans should describe the types and scales of developmentwhich would be appropriate within a green belt. These may include:
• development associated with agriculture, including the reuse of historic agriculturalbuildings; • development associated with woodland and forestry, including communitywoodlands; • horticulture, including market gardening and directly connected retailing;• recreational uses that are compatible with an agricultural or natural setting;• essential infrastructure such as digital communications infrastructure and electricitygrid connections; • development meeting a national requirement or established need, if no other suitablesite is available; and • intensification of established uses subject to the new development being of a suitablescale and form.
Comment: An assessment against SPP is included in the reports before Members.
D) CARDROSS COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Cardross Community Council (letter dated 10 March 2016)
Since the February meeting of the Community Council several members of the public haveapproached elected members to express concern that agents for the above applications havebeen canvassing within Cardross. While we have no objections to people seeking to supportfor the applications it should have been made clear that the full picture is much more complexthan support for Houses for Heroes. We agree that Houses for Heroes is an admirable charityand worthy of support. However, the more complex issues of planning policy such asgreenbelt, conservation areas, access and road safety have not been addressed according tosome members of the public who have been asked to sign a letter of support.
E) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Members note the additional representations and the additionalsubmission on behalf of the applicants and Cardross Community Council. The submissions donot alter the previous recommendation to hold a hearing and to refuse the application for thereasons set out in the main report.
Author of Report: Howard Young Date: 17th March 2016
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services