committee report nithsdale area …egenda.dumgal.gov.uk/aksdumgal/images/att20096.pdf · code of...

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 7 JULY 2010

2.3 tip

Dumfries mi & Galloway

Steve Rogers Operations Manager Planning Services Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries, DG1 2HS Telephone (01387) 260199 - Direct Dial Fax (01387) 260188

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, FORMATION OF LAYBY AND ACCESS, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND RAISED MOUND SOAKAWAY AT (A) PLOT I AND (B) PLOT 2 MAVIS GROVE (LAND ADJACENT TO LAGHALL ORCHARD), NEW ABBEY ROAD, DUMFRIES

APPLICANT: MR & MRS MURRAY REF. NO.: (A) 071P130349 (B) 071P130350

Recommendation by Service Manager Development Management - Approve (A) and (8) subject to conditions

Decision - Case Officer - Claire Eckstein

Ward - Abbey Hierarchy Type - Local

I BACKGROUND

1.1 These applications were considered by members of the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee at its meeting on 11 July 2007, who decided to defer consideration of the applications pending the Nithsdale small building group (SBG) review, which was underway at that time and included Mavis Grove Steading. Members agreed to ‘sist’ these applications until after the Planning, Housing and Environment Services Committee (PHESC) had agreed the review of changes.

1.2 At the PHESC on 13 April 2010 the Small Building Groups Supplementary Guidance was adopted and with the conclusion of the Nithsdale Small Building Groups Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) these applications can now be determined. Mavis Grove SteadingILaghall is now identified on the suitable list of small building groups (see Appendix 3).

1.3 The report prepared for the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee on 11 July 2007 is attached as Appendix 2. [Note - since this report due to changes in planning legislation, introduced by the Scottish Government in August 2009, outline planning applications are now known as permission in principle].

1.4 At this meeting the issue of flooding was raised by a representor and the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee members also sought further clarity on this. Scottish Environment Protection Agency were also consulted and their response is set out in Para. 2.2.1. A copy of the applicant’s response is noted in Para. 3.2 and attached as Appendix 4.

1.5 The application sites (Plot 1 - 0.33ha and Plot 2 - 0.329ha) are contained within a relatively flat grazing field that fronts onto the U223n (Laghall Quay) road. To the north east


-2-

boundary is a high brick wall with detached houses beyond (Laghall Orchard and Laghall Cottage which has recently been renovated and extended (05/P/30074)).

1.6 The U223n road joins onto the A710 (Dumfries to New Abbey) road approximately 300m from the sites (near Cargenholm). There is a junction in the U223n (near Mavis Grove Farm) to provide access to residential properties at West Laghall and Laghall Orchard. It then leads to the application sites and other residential properties to the south east which are mainly single storey.

1.7 The site has open aspects to surrounding countryside to the south west and has some mature trees in the corner of plot 2, with a native hedge along the boundary with the U223n.

1.8 The same sites were refused permission by the Planning and Environment Committee on 16 June 2006, following referral from the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee on 5 May 2006 (05/P/30089 & 90) for the following reasons:-

?. That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in Structure Plan Policy 04 and to national policy set out in SPP3 which permit the erection of new houses in the countryside only in special circumstances identified in development plans and none of these circumstances apply in this instance.

2. That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stafed in the finalised Nithsdale Local Plan as the small building group “Mavis Grove Steading / Laghall” has been identified in Appendix 3 as an unsuitable small building group in terms of criteria set out in General Policy 16a.

1.9 This followed their decision to endorse the Reporter’s recommendation following the Public Local Inquiry of the Nithsdale Local Plan, to include Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall in the Unsuitable Small Buildings Groups list. However, as noted in paragraph 1.2, this designation has now changed and the application sites are identified as within a suitable small building group in the Nithsdale Local Plan.

Planning Reform 1.10 The Planning Etc (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced Section 26A into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which provides three categories in a hierarchy of development to which all developments are to be allocated:-

0 national development; 0 major development; and 0 local development.

1 .I 1 The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 defines these classes of development. The proposed dwellinghouses fall into the ‘Local” category.

1 . I 2 The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (Saving and Transitional Provisions) Order 2009, states that applications made before 3 August 2009 but determined on or after that date will need to meet the criteria specified in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. Under the Council’s scheme


2.3 -3-

of delegation and in accordance with the Regulations “local development” applications are not subject to pre-determination hearings and therefore representors are not permitted to address the Area Committee in this instance.

1.13 These applications are required to be considered by the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee due to the lack of time to include them on the Committee Weekly List before the summer recess.

2 CONSULTATIONS

2.1 Scottish Water - No objection.

Note: No known public sewers in vicinity. Terregles Water Treatment Works currently has sufficient capacity to service this proposed development.

2.2 Scottish Environment Protection Agency - No objection provided that:-

(a) The foul drainage from the site connects to a septic tank and total soakaway arrangement or mound system, designed and constructed in accordance with the current code of practice BS 6297: 1983 and Part M of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (as amended), SEPA has no objection to the above proposal. Please note SEPA understands that the proposal does not involve a discharge of treated foul drainage to a watercourse either directly or indirectly. (b) The discharge of sewage effluent to a total soakaway arrangement or mound system does not necessarily require SEPA’s consent in terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended). As SEPA considers at this time that our consent will not be required it is recommended that you refer this consultation to your Building Control Department as their interests will be affected. (c) Would note in regard to concerns raised regarding surface water and the foul drainage on site. They would encourage the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to ensure that the surface water run-off from the sites is no greater than that associated with the undeveloped site. While infiltration may be feasible during the summer months it may be necessary to incorporate a high level overflow to a watercourse to accommodate any high water table associated with the winter period.

A properly constructed raised mound soakaway should not result in sewage effluent flowing across the ground, should not create ‘an open sewer‘ as stated and should not result in pollution of controlled waters; therefore our interests would not be adversely affected. The discharges must be registered with us under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005.

2.2.1 A further response, dated 27 August 2007 was received from SEPA in response to a letter of objection (Mr Howard Wood) which had raised concerns over a potential increase in flooding associated with the development. SEPA (Flood Risk Hydrology) advised that they had no record of the site itself being flooded during the 1962 flood event but that the occurrence of springs in the vicinity may support Mr Wood’s claims from groundwater ingress and a high water table which may in turn restrict the capacity of the land for rainwater dispersal causing problems with overland flow of surface water.


-4-

2.3 Development Team Leader (Nithsdale) - No objections subject to conditions.

Notes: Access is taken to rear of a 9.0m x 2.5m lay-by and visibility is satisfactory (2.0 x 70.0m appropriate). Whilst the Laghall Quay road is uniformly 3.0 metres wide, adequate intervisible passing for 2 cars exists.

Objections received from local residents have been noted and considered.

2.4 Troqueer Landward Community Council - No objection (1 3 April 201 0).

At their meeting regarding the SBG review they reaffirmed their support far the local plan and the configuration of this small building group

3 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 J & J Scott Ltd, Mavis Grove Farm, New Abbey Road; Mr H Howard Wood, Ardara, Mavis Grove Steading, New Abbey Road (and on behalf of owners of San Sheiling, Hazelknowe and Rohallion); E J & Mrs J Machin, Maes Tref, The Steading, New Abbey Road; Mr M Dalgleish, Rohallion, Mavis Grove Steading, New Abbey Road and Mr E Wilson, 3 Laghall Orchard, New Abbey Road, Dumfries objected in 2007. No further representations have been received since then.

3.2 The applicant, following the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee meeting of 11 July 2007, in a letter dated 26 July 2007 (Appendix 4) responded to the photographic information and letter presented by Mr Wood to the Committee indicating that they were not factually true.

3.3 Mr Ronald Thomson, Carmel, Laghall Orchard supports the application in a letter, submitted with applicant's letter of 11 July 2007. He advises that the drain from the site does not flow into the septic tank shared with Mr Wilson and that in the 19 years of living adjacent to the site he is unaware of any flooding problems.

4 REPORT

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that "Where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

4.2 The applications fall to be considered against Structure Plan Policy D4 and General Policies 1, 2, 7, 15, 16 and 58 of the Nithsdale Local Plan (see Appendix 1). The main issues maybe summarised as the principle for the development, siting and design, flooding and servicing.

Principle 4.3 The application sites as noted in paragraph 1.2 above are identified within Mavis Grove SteadingILaghall SBG as shown in the supplementary planning guidance extract included in


2.3 - 5 -

Appendix 3. The principle for the development is therefore accepted under General Policy 16 provided the proposals comply with the following criteria:-

(a) the development would conform with, or enhance, the building group’s existing form, character and appearance; and (b) the development accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 (Development Co ns id e rat ion s) ; and (c) the development accords with the provisions of General Policy 7 (Siting and Design). (d) development will not be permitted where it results in the coalescence of settlements or extends a ribbon of development.

Siting and Design 4.4 An assessment of the proposals against the criteria within General Policies 7 and 16(a, c & d) and the supplementary planning guidance (Appendix 3) establishes the suitability of sites provided the details for the siting and design are acceptable. As an application in principle the design details for the proposed houses have not been submitted. However the plot sizes are not dissimilar to those adjacent and with appropriate conditions for the layout, house design and landscaping are therefore considered as acceptable for this rural location and meet the terms of General Policies 7 and 16 for their siting and design.

Flooding 4.5 SEPA advises (Para. 2.2.1) that these sites were not part of the major flood event of the River Nith in 1962 and have raised no objections on flooding grounds. The applicant has also provided additional information (Appendix 4). It is therefore considered that the applications comply with General Policy 58 on flood risk.

Servicing 4.6 In terms of the other issues raised regarding drainage and roads issues these raise no objections from the Development Team Leader (Nithsdale Local Services) and SEPA subject to conditions being imposed and that the septic tank and raised mound soakaways for foul drainage comply with Building Regulations enforced by the Council’s Building Standards.

4.7 Overall subject to the conditions outlined above the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the Structure and Local Plan Policies and guidance as stated above and as there are no material considerations which would override the presumption in favour of the development plan; these applications are recommended for approval.

5 RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Approve (A) and (B) on the following grounds:-

1. a) That this planning permission in principle will expire three years from the date of this permission unless further application(s) for all of the matters specified in conditions below have been submitted to the planning authority within that time period; b) That development in accordance with this planning permission in principle must be commenced within three years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the final approval of matters specified in the conditions below (whichever is later of these two dates).


- 6 -

2. That no development in respect of this planning permission in principle shall take place unless further application(s), accompanied by plans showing all the matters specified in Conditions 3 to 6 below, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as planning authority.

3. floor levels of the dwellinghouse(s); position of the dwellinghouse(s) within the site; provision for car parking and garaging of vehicles within the curtilage of the site; and details of all accesses, fences, walls and hedges and foul and surface water drainage.

Layout : This shall include cross-sections of the site showing a datum point and final

4. Design : This shall include plans, sections and elevations of all buildings and any other structures. [Note :That the dwellinghouse hereby granted planning permission shall not exceed a single storey in height, although this may include accommodation within the attic or roofspace and the design shall be appropriate to this rural location]

5. materials to be used on walls, roofs, windows, doors, rainwater goods and any other external finishes to the building. [Note -that the finishes proposed shall be appropriate to this rural location]

External Appearance : This shall include a specification of the colour and type of all

6. Landscaping : This shall show the treatment of land (other than buildings) forming part of the site, including planting of new trees and shrubs, grassed areas, hedges, retained trees and other retained vegetation including the boundary hedge fronting onto U223n, details of level changes, hard surfacing, erection of walls, fences or other means of enclosure, formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks and the layout of gardens, courts and other amenity features designed to provide a landscape setting for the development.

7. be occupied unless a lay-by 9 metres long at the back and 2.5 metres in depth (as measured from the edge of the carriageway of the public road) with entrance and exit tapers of 45 degrees and a 1 in 40 gradient falling away from the public road carriageway has been formed.

That the dwellinghouse hereby granted planning permission in principle shall not

8. details of the precise method for the stopping-up of the existing vehicular access have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The dwellinghouse hereby granted planning permission shall not be occupied unless the access has been stopped- up in complete accordance with such details as may be so approved.

That no development in respect of this planning permission shall take place unless

9. That the dwellinghouse hereby granted planning permission shall not be occupied unless the following have been provided within the application site:- a) an off-street car parking area sufficient for no less than 2 cars; and b) a turning area in hardstanding sufficient to enable a car to enter and exit the public road in forward gear at all times. Thereafter, the said parking and turning areas shall be kept clear from obstruction and shall be retained only for that purpose for the lifetime of the development.

Appendices/-


2.3 - 7 -

APPENDIX 1

1 Dumfries and Galloway Structure Plan Policy D4: - Housing in the Countryside

Proposals for new housing development in the countryside must meet one or more of the following requirements: -

1. dwelling house without substantial rebuilding or extension of the original building;

the change of use and alteration of traditionally built agricultural or other buildings to a

2. curtilage unless this would result in the loss of a significant traditional building;

the replacement of a habitable dwelling house by a new house within the same

3. limited small scale housing development;

it forms part of an existing building group identified in a Local Plan as being suitable for

4. it is within an area which has been identified in a Local Plan as suffering long term depopulation, is remote from other settlements and would not adversely affect natural heritage designations; or

5. the house can be shown to be essential at that location for the needs of agriculture or other uses requiring an appropriate rural location in the countryside which cannot be satisfied by points 1 to 4 above.

Proposal for new houses must take into account design, siting, landscape setting, access, site servicing and the natural and built heritage. These matters will be the subject of further policy guidance in Local Plans.

2 There will be a general presumption against development which would give rise to a material degree of land use conflict, which would materially detract from and/or be incompatible with the character or amenity of the locality.

Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy I : Development Principle

3 Nithsdale Local Plan General General Policy 2: Development Considerations

As part of the assessment of development proposals, including those on sites identified in the Plan, developers will be required to satisfy the Planning Authority with regards to their proposals in terms of all of the following: -

(a) access, ground conditions and stability, contamination, foul and surface water drainage and water supply; (b) traffic generation onto the adjacent road network; (c) flooding; (see Policy 58 on Flood Risk and Development); (d) environmental impact.

When assessing planning applications, the Planning Authority will take into account the provisions of any site guidance, site specifications, or development brief as set out in Section 3 of the Plan. Where further information is required, the Planning Authority may apply the


- 8 -

provisions of Article 13 of Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 or Article 4(3) in respect of outline applications.

4 Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 7: Siting and Design

The Council as Planning Authority will require development to :-

a) have regard to the character and appearance, scale, density, massing and materials, of the building, group of buildings or adjacent area, of which it will forms a part; and b) retain and, where appropriate, enhance important physical and landscape features which contribute to the quality of the local environment having regard to the Local Biodiversity Action Plan ; c) have no material adverse effect on the local landscape character, avoiding prominent ridge lines or other visually sensitive sites; and d) take into account the guidance and advice set out in the Landscape Assessment Study; and e) comply with the Design Guidance set out in Appendix 1; and 9 where appropriate, have regard to the principles of PAN 46 - “Planning for Crime Prevention” ; and g) have regard to the replacement of any trees which are unavoidably lost as a result of development; and h) have regard to the need for energy conservation and efficiency in the design, orientation and layout of the site or buildings.

5 Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 15: Housing in the Countryside

Proposals for new residential development in the countryside, outwith those areas defined by Inset Maps, will be assessed against the criteria set out in the Structure Plan Policy D4.

6. Building Groups

Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 16: Development within Identified Small

There will be a presumption in favour of small scale housing development, normally of one to two dwellings, within the Small Building Groups identified in Section 3 of the Plan subject to all of the following criteria being met:-

(a) the development would conform with, or enhance, the building group’s existing form, character and appearance; and (b) the development accords with the provisions of General Policy 2 (Development C o n s i d e ra t i o n s) ; and (c) the development accords with the provisions of General Policy 7 (Siting and Design). (d) development will not be permitted where it results in the coalescence of settlements or extends a ribbon of development.

Following advice contained within PAN 36 (SITING AND DESIGN OF NEW HOUSING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE), and PAN 44 (NEW HOUSING) there will be a presumption against the expansion of identified small building groups by the development of “bungalow” or other suburban style developments. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that their proposals have taken into account an analysis of the existing built form, the landform and the local landscape character. Where it is considered appropriate guidance on specific Identified


2.3 - 9 -

Small Building Groups is given in Section 3 of the Plan. Early consultation with the Planning Authority is also recommended for development proposals in Small Building Groups.

7

Small Building Groups will only be considered suitable for limited housing development where they meet all of the following criteria:-

(a) the group must consist primarily of dwellinghouses forming a clearly identifiable nucleus with strong visual cohesion and sense of place: (b) the group must be physically and visually separate from other settlements: (c) there are suitable sites, the development of which would conform with and enhance the building group’s form, character and appearance and landscape setting; (d) development will not be permitted where it results in the coalescence of settlements or extends a ribbon of development.

Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 16a: Identification of Small Building Groups

During the life of the Plan the Planning Authority will keep under review Identified Small Building Groups and will delete those that have reached capacity. In terms of GP16a any future identification of Small Building Groups will first require to be considered by the appropriate Area Committee. Updated lists of identified Small Building Groups will take the form of Supplementary Guidance, to be published annually following committee approval. This process will commence following the adoption of the Plan.

8

There will be a presumption against development which would be at a significant risk from flooding or which would significantly increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere. Areas where there may be some flood risk have been identified on the Proposals or Inset Maps. In these areas new development proposals will be subject to consultation with SEPA to assess the flood risk.

Development in or which could affect flood risk areas will only be permitted if :- a) it would not, either individually or cumulatively, increase the risk of flooding

i) by reducing the capacity of, or increasing flows within a floodplain; or ii) through the discharge of additional surface water; or iii) by harming flood defences ; and/or

b) it would not be at risk from flooding; and c) adequate provision is made for access to watercourses for maintenance.

Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 58

The Council will use conditions and/or Section 75 Agreements to ensure that adequate mitigating measures are secured. As part of the implementation of this policy the use of culverts and/or the canalisation of watercourses should normally be avoided and existing culverted or canalised watercourses in redevelopment and land rehabilitation schemes should be restored where appropriate.


APPENDIX 2

David W Bell, Operations Manager Development Management Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries, DG1 2HS TeleDhone (01387) 260199 - Direct Dial Fax (01387) 260188

C O U N C I L

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, FORMATION OF LAYBY AND ACCESS, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND RAISED MOUND SOAKAWAY AT (A) PLOT 1 AND (B) PLOT 2 MAVIS GROVE (LAND ADJACENT TO LAGHALL ORCHARD), NEW ABBEY ROAD, DUMFRIES

APPLICANT: MR & MRS MURRAY REF. NO.: (A) 07/P/30349 (B) 07/P/30350

Recommendation by Operations Manager Development Management - Refuse (A) and (B) on the following grounds:-

1. Plan Policy 0 4 and to national policy set out in SPP3 which permit the erection of new houses in the countryside only in special circumstances identified in the development plans and none of these circumstances apply in this instance. 2. Local Plan as the small building group “Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall” has been identified in Appendix 3 as an unsuitable small building group in terms of criteria set out in General Policy 16a.

That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in Structure

That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in Nithsdale

I lDecision- Case Officer - Claire Eckstein I I

1 BACKGROUND

1. 1 The application sites (Plot 1 - 0.33ha and Plot 2 - 0.329ha) are contained within a relatively flat grazing field that fronts onto the U223n (Laghall Quay) road. To the north east boundary is a high brick wall with detached houses beyond (Laghall Orchard) and Laghall Cottage which has recently been renovated and extended (05/P/30074).

1.2 The U223n road joins onto the A710 (Dumfries to New Abbey) road approximately 300m from the sites (near Cargenholm). There is a junction in the U223n (near Mavis Grove Farm) to provide access to residential properties at West Laghall and Laghall Orchard. It then leads to these sites and other residential properties to the south east (mainly single storey).

1.3 The site has open aspects to surrounding countryside to the south west and has some mature trees in corner of plot 2, with a native hedge along boundary with U223n.

1.4 The same sites were refused permission by the Planning and Environment Committee on 16 June 2006, following referral from the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee on 5 May 2006 (05/P/30089 & 90) for the following reasons:-

I . That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in Structure Plan Policy D4 and to national policy set out in SPP3 which permit the erection

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 7 1 JULY 2007

2.3 - 2 -

of new houses in the countryside only in special circumstances identified in development plans and none of these circumstances apply in this instance.

2. That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan as the small building group "Mavis Grove Steading / Laghall" has been identified in Appendix 3 as an unsuitable small building group in terms of criteria set out in General Policy 16a.

1.5 This followed their decision to endorse the Reporter's recommendation following the Public Local Inquiry of the Nithsdale Local Plan, to include Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall into Appendix 3 of fhe Plan, the list of Unsuitable Small Buildings Groups which have been assessed but do not meet the criteria in General Policy 16a of the Nithsdale Local Plan and at their meeting of 14 February 2006.

2 CONSULTATIONS

2. I Scottish Water - No objections. Notes no known public sewers in vicinity. Terregles Water Treatment Works currently has sufficient capacity to service this proposed development.

2.2 Scottish Environment Protection Agency - No objections provided that:-

(a) The foul drainage from the site connects to a septic tank and total soakaway arrangement or mound system, designed and constructed in accordance with the current code of practice BS 6297:1983 and Part M of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (as amended), SEPA has no objection to the above proposal. Please note SEPA understands that the proposal does not involve a discharge of treated foul drainage to a watercourse either directly or indirectly. (b) The discharge of sewage effluent to a total soakaway arrangement or mound system does not necessarily require SEPA's consent in terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended). As SEPA considers at this time that our consent will not be required it is recommended that you refer this consultation to your Building Control Department as their interests will be affected. (c) Would note in regard to concerns raised regarding surface water and the foul drainage on site. They would encourage the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to ensure that the surface water run-off from the sites is no greater than that associated with the undeveloped site. While infiltration may be feasible during the summer months it may be necessary to incoqorate a high level overflow to a watercourse to accommodate any high water table associated with the winter period.

A properly constructed raised mound soakaway should not result in sewage effluent flowing across the ground, should not create 'an open sewer' as stated and should not result in pollution of controlled waters, therefore our interests would not be adversely affected. The discharges must be registered with us under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005.

2.3 Development Team Leader (Nithsdale Local Services) - No objections subject to conditions. Notes access is taken to rear of a 9. Om x 2.5m layby and visibility is satisfactory (2.0 x 70. Om appropriate).


Whilst the Laghall Quay road is uniformly 3.0 metres wide, adequate intervisible passing for 2 cars exists.

Objections received from local residents have been noted and considered.

3 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 J & J Scott Ltd, Mavis Grove Farm, New Abbey Road; Mr H Howard Wood, Ardara, Mavis Grove Steading, New Abbey Road (and on behalf of owners of San Sheiling, Hazelknowe and Rohallion); E J & Mrs J Machin, Maes Tref, The Steading, New Abbey Road; Mr M Dalgleish, Rohallion, Mavis Grove Steading, New Abbey Road and Mr E Wilson, 3 Laghall Orchard, New Abbey Road, Dumfries object:-

(a) That address is not Mavis Grove but Laghall. (b) Ground conditions are not suitable for septic tank and soakaways due to high water table so at present water rises to the surface. Site also liable to flooding. Concern this could lead to pollution problems as it finds its way into main field drain leading down to River Nith. (c) Each house has a separate access. (d) There are presenfly 14 dwellings using this single track road leading to New Abbey Road with no passing place between Mavis Grove Farmhouse and New Abbey Road. Road should be brought up to standard. A bell mouth would require to be made up at the junction of the access road and the A710. The sight line to the north along the A710 also requires some attention, in spite of what the Police say. The access road also requires passing places. The reason for the passing places is if you turn into the access road and there is a car heading west on the access road then you require to reverse back onto the A710, which is an accident waiting to happen. The bell mouth and passing places would remove this hazard. Suggest that if planning permission is granted the Murray's should be charged for the upgrading of the road. (e) The public and Council maintained road giving access to Laghall and Mavis Grove Steading is in a very poor state of repair and increasing the number of houses to using that road for access will only worsen the situation. You may think 1 more house will not greatly impact on this situation but the reality is that there are 7 houses using the bottom section of the road for access at present, therefore even an increase of one more house adds 14% to the rate of wear and tear. (0 From experience I can advise that the field containing plot 2, which is subject to this application, is subject to flooding and a concern I have with a dwelling being erected in that field this water would have to be drained. The proximity of my boundary (Rohallion) to the plot leads me to fear the water may be pushed towards my land and this would be very unhelpful and add to existing problems of the low water table of the land in this area. (9) Concern is the formation of a septic tank within a matter of feet from my boundary and I view as a threat to my young family and their enjoyment. I understand previous applications suggested a raised septic tank would be constructed. The prospect of looking out onto a raised septic tank rather than an open field is a prospect nobody would relish. (h) To propose to building a Raised Mound Soakaway on a field which floods seems to me crazy. To pump excrement up hill then allow it to run out of the top of the soakaway onto the ground, which floods would in effect create an open sewer. An open sewer with all its hazards to health should not be allowed to happen in this day and age. There are some very young children and elderly people living in the surrounding houses who could be adversely affected by the creation of an open sewer not twenty yards from their back doors.

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 77 Ju~v2007

2.3 - 4 -

(0 The fact that an open sewer would be created seemed to escape the Council Members who attended the last application hearing. SEPA also seem unable to take this fact on board, saying it was a matter for Building Control. How an open sewer is a Building Control matter and not that of SEPA or the Public Health is beyond me. I think this is passing the buck on a grand scale. 0) The area between the property known as Hazel Knowe and the entrance to San Shieling is notoriously bad for flooding. Matters are even worse over the winter months. There is simply nowhere for the water to go and the addition of a further two properties with the increase in domestic water which needs to be disposed of can only make matters worse. (k) The land in question is agricultural land, which supports wildlife including hares and badgers. We are greatly concerned that if permission is granted to this developer, it could prove to be the ’thin edge of the wedge’ and it will open a floodgate for applications to build houses on agricultural land in the area, which it may then be difficult to refuse. (I) There has been no change in circumstances since the previous applications (05/P/30089 and 05/P/30090) and we reaffirm our representations lodged against these applications. (m) In our opinion these current applications are simply an administrative procedure to meet the 12 month deadline to achieve free applications and do not present proposals that are changed in any respect nor has any attempt been made to address the reasons for the previous refusals. (n) All of the representations made to the Public Hearing as part of the Nithsdale Local Plan Inquiry are still applicable. As a result these proposals were considered independently at this Inquiry, the outcome of which was that the Reporter upheld the objection to the inclusion of this land for housing in the Nithsdale Local Plan. This decision was reflected in the recommendations by the Council Officers for refusal in relation to the previous applications and which was eventually the decision of the Council. (Note: A copy of Local Plan representations and recommendations are set out in Appendices 2 and 3).

4 REPORT

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that “Where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 Policies I , 2, 7, 15, 16 and 16a of the Nithsdale Local Plan (see Appendix 1).

The applications fall to be considered against Structure Plan Policy 0 4 and General

4.3 The application sites as noted in paragraph 1.5 are contained within Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall which is identified as not meeting with the criteria in General Policy 16a. The sites therefore cannot be considered against criterion 3 of Structure Plan Policy D4: Housing in the Countryside. There has been no information provided by the applicant that meets with criterion 5 of Policy 0 4 that they are ‘essential’ in this location.

4.4 As the proposals are contrary to policy and there are no material considerations to justify an exceptional grant of permission contrary to policy, they are recommended for refusal. It should be noted that the approval of these applications would set a precedent for the development of sites within small building groups some of which have been subject to public local inquiry, that have been carefully assessed and considered as unsuitable for further development and encourage sporadic residential development in the countryside.


- 5 -

4.5 In addition to this, to grant permission contrary to policy and contrary to the previous decisions on identical applications where no new material information has come to light would be capricious. SPPI, The Planning System, states that development control should be reliable and consistent. It also states that if a proposal does not accord with the development plan, if should be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted. This is emphasised in PAN40, Development Control, which repeats the fact that decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan and that councillors should seek to ensure consistency in their decision making, particularly concerning the application of policy. There is therefore no basis for changing the previous decisions on these applications.

4.6 In terms of the other issues raised regarding drainage and roads issues these raise no objections from the Development Team Leader (Nithsdale Local Services) and SEPA subject to conditions being imposed and that the septic tank and raised mound soakaways for foul drainage comply with Building Regulations enforced by the Council’s Building Standards.

5 RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Refuse (A) and (6) on the following grounds:-

1. That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in Structure Plan Policy 0 4 and to national policy set out in SPP3 which permit the erection of new houses in the countryside only in special circumstances identified in development plans and none of these circumstances apply in this instance.

2. That the proposal is contrary to the policy of the Council as stated in the Nithsdale Local Plan as the small building group “Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall” has been identified in Appendix 3 as an unsuitable small building group in terms of criteria set out in General Policy 1 6a.

Appendix/-

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 11 Ju~y2007

2.3

~

07/P/30349 07/P/30350

APPENDIX 2 Statement of Decision

Dumfries and Galloway Council

to the Reporter’s recommendations to the

Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 Ficalisad t 4 i t k x ~ k 1 ~ ~ 1 ?!an JaGsGiy 2032

I

Objector: Mrs Milroy & Mrs Cullen, Mr E WNson Report Index Number: 50 Objection Number: 97.02.01, 192.21.01 Subject: Mavis Grove Steading (3.1.198)

I. Summary of Objection

Mrs Milroy & Mrs Cullen Mavis Grove Farm Steading paddocks should be included for housing purposes. Mavis Grove Steading was previously contained in the Consultative Draft Plan as a suitable location for 2 houses.

Mr E Wilson Objection to Mavis Grove Steading being included as a small building group (change ref 103). The inclusion of part of the land is objected to, as there are no overriding reasons on land use planning grounds to identify this fielddocation as a SBG. The piece of land is an open field, unconnected to Mavis Grove steading. The field itself does not consist primarily of dwellinghouses forming a clearly identifiable nucleus with strong visual cohesion and sense of place. A further letter dated 10 February 2005 seeks clarification of Mavis Grove Steading Small Building Group. Foliowing telephone discussions with a Council Officer, it is now understood that the area of land that meets the policy criteria of

. General Policy 16 is a different piece of Sand located to the north of the former steading group and not the area of land to the south of the former steading group which formed the basis of Objection 97.2. This gives rise to a number of serious issues 1 The land now being considered by officers to be suitable is not and never has been part of the former Mavis Grove Steading. It is an area of land formerly attached to the property Laghall and subsequently sold to the owners of the Oak and Carmel, both properties located within Laghall Orchard. The owners of the Oak have subsequently acquired full ownership of this area of land. 2 The original grounds of objection are based entirely on the objection 97.2 site identified in the Committee Papers. The acknowledgement to

’

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE I1 Ju~y2007

.. .

the original letter of objection (of 17 December 2004) should hbvG 07/p/30341 advised this objector that another piece of ground meets the policy 07/P/3035C criteria and provided an opportunity to amend the terms of the formal objection. It is considered that this objector‘s position and rights to make a full and valid objection have been compromised by the lack of clarity and accuracy of description on the part of the Council.

2. Reporter’s Rii~n~trlen&jt_i~:.i*y ,

Mavk G:ove Stes~inglLayiiali-should not be identified as a suitable small building group under paragraph 3.1.198, and should therefore be included within Appendix 3.

3. Council’s Response . .

The Reporter’s findings in respect of this objection are accepted.

4. Proposed Modification

Delete “Mavis Grove Steading” from the List of Suitable Small Building Groups as proposed by Change 103 of the Schedule of Changes, November 2004.

Insert “Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall” into Appendix 3, List of Unsuitable Small Building Groups. (Renamed: Small Building Groups that have been assessed but do not meet the criteria in GP16a).

COMMI~EE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE I I JULY 2007

2.3

APPENDIX 3 071P130349 071P130350

Report Planning and Environment Services Committee 14 February 2006

"-,.. . REPORT ON, THE PUELlC LOCAL INQUIRY INT~.THEFlNALISE!3 NITHSDALE LOCAL PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED

_ . - I - , -.-. - . CHANGES - . >

1

3.4.3 Mavis Grove Steadingl Laghall (Report Index no 50 - Appendix 2) NARC( 7 February 2005) Minute "to recommend to Planning and Environment Services Committee that the reporter's findings in respect of site A be upheld; to recommend that site B be identified as within a suitable small building group - based upon the analysis contained at paragraph 50. I9 and 50.20 of the Reporter's Report - and that the Small Buildings Group be identified as Laghall."

Officers' Commentary In determining whether or not to include a Small Building Group within the Local Plan it must be assessed against the criteria of General Policy 'GP16a". The reporter in evaluating Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall considered two criteria to be of particular relevance to his conclusion Criterion "A" and "C" of Policy GP16a. Each is detailed below "A" 'the group must consist primarily of dwellinghouses forming a cleady identifiable nucleus with strong visual cohesion and sense of place" "C" "there are suitable sites, the development of which would conform with and enhance the building group's form, character and appearance and landscape setting. The reporter's conclusions in respect of "A" was that essentially two groups existed at this location and as such the policy criterion could not be satisfied in terms of there being a "clearly identifiable nucleus. " He also considered that there were serious question marks over both of the potential site locations offered for development within the group, in terms of criterion "c". Site A would represent an extension into the countryside, and site B is conspicuous from the A710 and even 1-2 dwellings would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting. As here was little to choose between the two sites if both proceeded there would potentially be too much housing which in turn could create issues with the narrow laneway that serves the group. The NARC concluded that Laghall should be identified as a Small Building Group with Site B the only potential development site, However the identification of this site does not resolve the assessment that the group fails to satisfy Criterion "A" of GP16a and the local visual impact any development would have. a

Recommendation That the Reporter's Recommendation is upheld and that Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall is not identified as a Suitable Small Building Group and that Mavis Grove Steading/Laghall be included within Appendix 3 the List of Unsuitable Small Building Groups, which do not meet the criteria of GPI6a.- __

1 COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 7 7 JULY 2007

APPENDIX 3

Extract from Supplementary Planning Guidance 3.2 Small Building Groups - Nithsdale (Jan 2010)

Suitab€e Small B~iilcliiig Groups ( Potential development sites shown on the following maps as J symbol 1

COMMITTEE REPORT NITUSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 7 JULY 2010

2.3 APPENDIX 4

Mr Dennis Murray The Oak

Laghall Orchard Dumfries DG2 8ER

26* July, 2007 Mr David A Banford, Area Planning Manager (Nithsdale), Planning & Building Control, Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries. DGl2HS

Dear Mr Banford.

Land Adjacent to ,aghall Ore-ar New Avvey Roa Dumfries.

I refer to your letter dated 13 July, 2007 asking me to supply more information on the alleged flooding of the site.

At the Nithsdale Area Regulatory Committee meeting on 1 1 * July, Mr Wood, one of the representors, stated that the site was subject to flooding and presented a photograph. He also stated that the Council had dug a channel draining rain water from the road into the site. Neither of these statements are factually true.

I have spoken with three Council Roads Department staff and each one confirms that they have never had problems with flooding from this field. My wife and I have lived at Laghall for nineteen years and have never known this field to flood.

This has been a particularly wet year and as the rainwater flows downhill along the Laghall Quay Road it pools at the bottom of the hill at the entrance to the road which leads to San Sheiling, the property of Mr and Mrs Kenneth Fraser. This water is not coming from the site in question but was being channelled into the site.

Mr Gordon McDonald, Council Roads Department, states that he has worked in this area for many years and has never authorised the digging of a channel to drain rain water into the site.

Earlier this year, following a period of particularly wet weather, I found that a channel had been dug draining rain water from the Laghall Quay Road into the field. I have photographs showing this. The volume of water being drained into the field was causing a temporary puddling. I had a conversation with Mr Kenneth Fraser, San Sheiling, one of the objectors, and asked him who had dug the channel. He stated that it had been dug by the Council. When I informed him that I would be contacting the council to ask why they had done so without my permission, Mr Fraser admitted that it was he who had dug the channel. Therefore it was one of the objectors who had caused the temporary puddling and this temporary puddling that is the subject of Mr Wood’s photograph.

Another statement that is factually untrue arose when Mr Wood was asked what the owner of Laghall Cottage thought of the situation. He answered that h4r Wallace was not in favour of the planning application. I have a letter from Mr Wallace stating that he has no objection and that he wishes us well with our plans,

In conclusion, there is no flooding from this site.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

committee report nithsdale area …egenda.dumgal.gov.uk/aksdumgal/images/att20096.pdf · code of...

Documents