EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 23 JUNE 2017
17/0139/PPP PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 550 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS APPLICATION BY MR JOHN GARDNER AT TREESBANK KILMARNOCK EAST AYRSHIRE KA1 5LP
Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development Economy and Skills
Click for Application Details: http://eplanning.eastayrshire.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&k eyVal=OLU33QGFILC00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to present for determination an application for planning permission in principle which is to be considered by the Planning Committee under the scheme of delegation as it a major development, in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which would also require to be determined by Planning Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
2. It is recommended that the application be refused subject to the reasons listed on the attached sheet.
CONTRARY DECISION NOTE
3 Should the Committee agree that the application be refused on principle of the development, contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development the application will require to be referred to the Council because that would represent a significant departure from the local development plan. However if Members agree that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the report, the application will not require to be referred to the Council because that would not represent a significant departure from the local development plan.
Michael Keane
Head of Planning and Economic Development
Note: This document combines key sections of the associated report for quick reference and should not in itself be considered as having been the basis for recommendation preparation or decision making by the Planning Authority.
EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE: 23 JUNE 2017
17/0139/PPP PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 550 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS APPLICATION BY MR JOHN GARDNER AT TREESBANK KILMARNOCK EAST AYRSHIRE KA1 5LP
Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development Economy and Skills
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to present for determination an application for planning permission in principle which is to be considered by the Planning Committee under the Scheme of Delegation as it a major development, in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which would also require to be determined by Planning Committee.
APPLICATION DETAILS
2. Site Description: The site is within the settlement boundary of Kilmarnock and is bounded to the south, east and south-east by the A77 road, to the west, by Ayr Road and beyond that, Caprington Golf Course. To the north lies Loreny Business Park and Loreny Park and Shortlees estate. The site is allocated for housing (site 317H) in the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, as it had also been under the East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010.
3. The area to the north and north-east is residential in nature, post-war housing of Shortlees and Bellfield, both of which now have more modern houses peppered throughout. The A77 bypass to the south forms a man- made edge to the settlement of Kilmarnock, with rural area beyond, accessed via Treeswoodhead Road, in the direction of Craigie. The site is within the East Ayrshire Lowlands landscape type, which have a variable landform which although generally undulating, can be more complex and rolling in some areas.
4. The site measures 43 hectares and the current Treesbank House built 1926-28, (attributed to James Carrick under James Hunter’s practice) which replaced the older Treesbanks House, built in 1672 by the Campbell family (enlarged by them in 1838) within landscaped grounds. The house is a private residence, previously being owned by the Scottish Trade Union Congress until the 1990's. Treesbank House, as noted above, is a Category B listed building built, for Gavin Morton of Blackwood and Morton, Kilmarnock. The house is largely random rubble with ashlar dressings and mullioned windows, with rooms in the roof via catslide dormers, and is charming in terms of its domestic scale. To the south of the house lies the stables, survivors from the old Treesbanks House which are Category C listed, circa 1770, 2-storey elongated U-plan stable block, with stugged, square rubble with red sandstone dressings. Also on site is the Category A listed Doocot, dated 1771 in raised brickwork above door; comprising an eight sided brick base, corbelled band, round upper stage, corbelled eave band and pigeon entrances, bell-cast slate roof. The Stables and the Doocot are on the Scottish Civic Society’s Buildings at Risk register.
5. The site is also host to a Local Nature Conservation Site, (formerly a Provisional Wildlife Site), which notes this old estate contains mixed woodland habitats with a varied flora and bird population, reasonable quality pastures, also regenerating woodland and rough pasture. Also covering much of the site is a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), noting this is a statutory protection, and the non-statutory designation of Ancient Woodlands, which covers most of the area covered by TPO.
6. In summary, there are no particular environmental designations on the larger grassland to the east of the House, which at over 13 hectares is a large portion of the site. The remainder of the site, however is largely covered by TPO and Ancient Woodlands designations (except for the pasture areas to the west and the north of the House); and as a Local Nature Conservation Site.
7. Proposed Development: The proposal is for planning permission in principle for approximately 550 dwellings and associated works. The application is supported by various technical information, including:
Transport Assessment; Tree Survey Drainage Layout; Indicative site Masterplan; Ecology Report; Arboricultural Report; Archaeological Report; Flood Risk Assessment; Pre Application Consultation report from which the applicants noted they made revisions to the draft masterplan, with [i] Increased open recreation space and fewer houses; [ii] revision of extents of tree removal; [iii] housing moved from potential flood risk areas; enhancement of Dovecot setting; and a Traffic light system at Ayr Road entrance; and Design and Access Statement. – which notes using the natural boundaries of the woodland landscape to define four large protected and private development zones, and to create an attractive central park and communal recreation space which also connects into an existing woodland walkway at the recreation ground at Shortlees.
CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED
8. East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service commented on noisy work on the site during construction; dust suppression measures; waste arising from the works; and drainage to be completed to the satisfaction of SEPA and/or Scottish Water.
Members are advised that all of the above would be assessed at any subsequent detailed application stage should Members decide to grant consent.
9. In addition, the Council’s Environmental Health Service noted that the development site lies in close proximity to the A77 trunk road, and it is therefore recommended that a Noise Impact Assessment be prepared for the site, and that this assessment should include a mitigation strategy to ensure that no property to be constructed is subjected to an external daytime noise level of LAeq 55dB 1hr and an internal noise level of LAeq30dB1hr night-time, both in order to preserve residential amenity.
A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has not been submitted for consideration in this regard as part of the overall application submission, especially in relation to Road Traffic Noise. The applicant has noted that the belt of trees as existing, adjacent to the A77, should provide mitigation for road traffic noise, however, that is not backed by any noise survey information. Members should note that whilst some elements, such as detailed drainage matters, can be submitted in any subsequent application for detailed consent, some matters require to be assessed at planning permission in principle, one being NIA, so that fundamentally, the effects of noise can be considered at this strategic level in order than any subsequent application is informed by its result in its detailed design.
10. East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service (Contaminated Land) have no objections, but advise the site needs a desk study report carried out to identify whether the site contains any contaminated land.
This matter can be dealt with as a condition prior to any commencement of development, should Members decide to grant consent.
11. East Ayrshire Leisure Trust Access Officer noted there are no Core Paths or Public Rights of Way within or adjacent to the red line site boundary of this proposed development. Area wide access rights, as contained within the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, are exercisable across the current site land uses of fields, woodlands and watercourses. Area wide access rights are not exercisable across the site land uses of buildings and associated hardstanding curtilages and garden grounds, but if developed, access rights within the development site boundary would be suspended on a temporary basis, and would be reinstated automatically post construction.
12. Given the above policy context it is requested that the developer provides a network of off-road paths which are suitable for both walking and cycling and provide residents with a path network for both recreation and active travel uses. To this end the Access Officer requested that the developer works up the following items for our approval; (a) a plan detailing an internal off-road path network and its external connections, (b) route specifications including widths, surfacing, signage and landscaping and (c) a phased path construction programme tied to plot occupations. In order to provide an off-road walking and cycling path network, the developer should improve on the current tabled pedestrian connections detailed within diagram 3.5 of the Design and Access Statement to include the following:
Elements of the current off road network which provided connectivity within a network but require to be provided to a standard which is suitable for pedestrian and cycle use;
Additional sections of off-road walking and cycling routes which are required in order to provide a complete internal network;
An additional section of off-road walking and cycling route which is required in order to provide an off-road link to the proposed Kilmarnock to Symington Active Travel route; and
An additional section of off-road walking and cycling route which is required in order to provide an on-site section of the Kilmarnock Green Infrastructure Project (KGIP) path network.
13. Also, three paths, two within the current proposals from the applicant and one additional path requested by the Access Officer, exit the development site into Loreny Park to the north of the development site. Loreny Park provides an important walking and cycling link between the proposed development site and the wider town. Given the importance of the neighbouring Loreny Park site to the development the Access Officer also requested that the developer contributes towards the improvement of the path network within Loreny Park e.g. increase existing path widths from c1.0m to 2.0m in width, provision of a new bridge and provision of a new link path of c 80m between the requested on site KGIP path section and the existing path network within Loreny Park.
These matters could be covered by a planning condition, should Members decide to grant consent.
14. East Ayrshire Leisure Trust Countryside Manager noted the Phase 1 survey is limited; however, this is always going to be the case when an ecological survey is carried out on one day in September. Surveying at this time of year is unlikely to give a true indication of the ecological value of the site and the Leisure Trust Countryside Manager noted it would have expected, that a site of this nature to take more than one day to assess, particularly as it is a Provisional Wildlife Site. The Leisure Trust Countryside Manager added these following comments:
The site is included within the Inventory of Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland therefore, whilst it is accurate to state that it is broadleaved plantation, this is misleading as it is long established and offers significant ecological value; this site would be classed as high suitability for bats. The report suggests that it is moderate based on the BCT guidelines. East Ayrshire Leisure Trust use these guidelines regularly for assessing buildings etc. and would be interested to see how the ‘moderate’ conclusion was reached. Either way, and given the bat records that are held locally and on the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) for the area, it would be essential to carry out a detailed bat survey and prepare a mitigation plan for the development; Similarly for otters, the site has been identified as having likely otter habitat and otters have been recorded breeding and foraging within the riparian catchment. Therefore, a detailed otter survey needs to be carried out; and A bird survey would also be required, and
all of these surveys above would need to follow nationally accepted methodology and be carried out at the right time of year and over a period of time.
The above comments are noted. The surveys for protected species are not possible to be the subject of a conditional grant of planning consent and must be satisfactorily dealt with at PPP stage, per SNH’s advice that all planning authorities must fully ascertain whether protected species are present on a development site and if so consider what the implications might be. Attaching a suspensive condition to a planning permission is not allowed within the terms of the legislation and guidance on its implementation (for example, a condition requiring that development should not start until a bat survey has been done). If a protected species is present on a site, the planning authority must satisfy itself that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the species.
15. East Ayrshire Council Housing Services noted that an updated Strategic Housing Improvement Programme is due to be submitted to the Scottish Government in October 2017, and its content will be informed by the outcome of the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment exercise and ongoing Housing Assessment Management Framework. This data will, therefore, will be used to inform the provision of affordable housing within the master plan area at Treesbank, Kilmarnock, given the scale of the development proposals.
16. East Ayrshire Council Outdoor Services (OS) object to the application, and noted several areas of concern:
(i) all of the trees within the estate are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and are also within a designated ancient woodland area. OS would recommend retaining all Category A and B trees highlighted within the Arboricultural survey report and OS can consider removal/replacement of category C trees. With regards to the Arboricultural Report, this appears to only cover thoroughly a small area of the Estate where individual trees have been assessed with the rest of the estate being generalised. Again, a more thorough report will be required for the whole estate which will dictate the design of the site as highlighted in BS 5837.
(ii) the general proposed site plan appears to have far too many houses and not enough quality open space areas for play and recreation and this would need to be addressed. The proposed design will also create long term shading issues for houses close to mature trees and OS recommend a shading exercise is carried out to ascertain which properties would be affected to dictate any redesigning of the site.
(iii) the adjacent Loreny Park could be upgraded through development gain to link into the site. Any proposed upgrading should be in consultation with ourselves, colleagues at Vibrant Communities, the local Community Council and Members.
(iv) if not already carried out, OS would expect an Environmental impact assessment be carried out because the site will likely have a number of bats and other wildlife which require protection.
The comments above are noted, and it is considered the removal of the large tranche of trees categorised as Category A is of concern overall, as is the lack of a shading plan, which would have been overall beneficial in terms of deciding whether 550 units could be accommodated on site.
17. East Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Roads Alliance (Flooding) noted that recently, the Irvine Valley Flood Study has been completed and verified by SEPA, the fluvial 1:200 +CC has been attached which now shows large sections of this site at flood risk. Therefore, it is imperative that the applicant ensures that all areas of this application are out with this floodplain or, otherwise, identifies by further Flood Risk Assessment mitigation measures, for any section that is proposed to remain within this outline, such that there is as a minimum a neutral effect on the flood plain.
The information as submitted currently does not meet with a satisfactory response from the Council’s Flooding Engineer.
18. Ayrshire Roads Alliance (Transport Assessments) noted the application as submitted makes no reference to a Conventional Roundabout as the proposed access to the Site and in fact the Planning Consultants Drawings show a signalised Junction as the main access point, but overall, the Transport Assessment (TA) does not meet with the requirements overall of Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA).
The TA was scoped by the applicant with ARA but unfortunately on submission, did not cover the issues that ARA raised. Whilst a second TA was drafted for the attention of ARA, it was not submitted to the Planning Service as part of the application process overall. The TA as revised cannot be taken into account in the determination of this application. If it had been submitted, then the TA would have required to be advertised, neighbour notified and consulted on in order to be admissible as supporting information.
19. Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) (Traffic and Transport) provided advice on detailed issues on a number of matters: -
a Road Construction Consent Application will be required; a Road Bond will be required; a road opening/occupation permit will be required for all works carried out within the public road limits that are not covered by the Road Construction Consent red line site; for new residential developments the Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) will accept the following layout types which may include ‘designing for streets’ features required from East Ayrshire Council Planning; and ARA welcomes road layout & SUDs suggestions if they have been approved by Scottish Water and have proven to be successful elsewhere.
The preferred option will be for a standard road layout will be used with road gullies which will discharge into the Scottish Water surface water pipe which leads to the end of line SUDs pond or basin. Early communication with Scottish Water on this design is recommended.
These matters can be considered at the detailed application stage, should Members decide to grant consent.
20. Additionally, however the applicant requires to demonstrate the Flood Route for the 1:200 year rainfall event and how it is to be channelled to the identified attenuation without putting any of the properties at risk on route. A plan should be submitted showing this Flood Route for the 1:200 year rainfall event, this will highlight crossfalls on carriageways and footways by means of arrows indicating the surface water flow direction. Also, Finished floor levels (FFLs) of the dwelling houses should be submitted.
Whilst these matters are generally covered by any assessment under a detailed planning application, in this case, as the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been found not to be conclusive in demonstrating that the site is free from flood risk, it is essential that the flood route of the carriageway, and an indication of FFLs are provided to ensure that properties are free from risk of inundation. The application is therefore without a competent and complete FRA.
21. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Flooding Section object to the proposed development on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and lack of information regarding the impacts of the proposal on the water environment. In summary, SEPA have been provided with insufficient information to adequately characterise the extent of functional flood plain of Simon’s Burn and the small watercourses on site. The flood maps used are also indicative in nature; it is not appropriate to use them at a site specific or property scale. They should only be used as a screening tool. The assessment is therefore likely to breach of the terms and conditions of the SEPA Flood Maps. More generally, the approach that has been used is not considered to be appropriate. It is assumed that the fluvial extent as shown on the SEPA Flood Maps is correct and that one Manning’s calculation is sufficient substantiate this. Additionally, there are small watercourses which run through the site which have not been subject to assessment within the FRA. SEPA also note that another small watercourse in the south west corner of the site looks as if it is being infilled / culverted so that housing can be built over it. From the information included within the Design and Access Statement it is apparent that the rill feature south of Treesbank House will see the formation of a new canalised feature with a number of bridging structures/culverts for access purposes. Please note that the principle of avoidance also applies to positioning buildings over or immediately adjacent to culverts if it is located under the land/garden ground associated with the property.
22. Additionally, SEPA understand that the design strategy for the site, as set out within the Indicative Site Masterplan (Drawing No. G10092-L(--)003), involves the permanent realignment of a tributary of Simon’s Burn, including a ‘landscaped rill at the boundary of front gardens’ to the south of Treesbank House, and the formation of an in line SUDS pond. Any proposals to undertake alterations to, or works on, the bank or bed of the watercourse constitutes an activity which requires to be authorised by SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR). SEPA currently have insufficient information to comment on the consentability of these works under CAR. In order to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive developments should be designed to avoid engineering activities in the water environment wherever possible. As such our preference is that the developer works with the water environment when designing the site layout by making a feature out the watercourses present on site. This should involve the adoption of appropriate buffer strips to help to reduce the risk of diffuse water pollution and afford protection to the riparian habitat. SEPA therefore request that the proposed site masterplan is reconfigured to reflect these requirements.
23. Specifically, it appears that culverting for land gain is proposed in the south west corner of the site, and SEPA have a presumption against such proposals as set out in our policy on culverting of watercourses and request that the proposal is modified to remove the culverting of this feature. SEPA also have concerns with the intention to install a SUDS pond on the line of the existing watercourse. Any SUDS features must be designed to be off line from the existing water environment. The SUDS pond must therefore be relocated or the tributary diverted around it.
The above comments are noted. SEPA recently issued updated information in terms of flood risk to the Kilmarnock area in general, and this has increased flood risk in some areas that requires to be taken account of. Notwithstanding this, there are clearly design features outlined at PPP stage that give SEPA cause for concern, in that there is an overall lack of information regarding the impacts of the proposal on the water environment, and the methodology used. Also, some of the outline proposals, with regard to potential being infilling /culverting watercourses, canalising features, and permanent realignment of a tributary of Simon’s Burn are not acceptable as engineering activities in the water environment, as currently presented. The applicant’s agent has not addressed the concerns of SEPA and the application is therefore without a competent and complete FRA. If Members choose to grant consent noting this objection then the application would require to be formally notified to Scottish Ministers as per the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009 given SEPA’s national role in flooding matters.
24. The Coal Authority (CA) objects to this planning application, as a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report has not been submitted as part of the application.
Additional information was submitted 11/04/17, but the Coal Authority still does not consider this adequately addresses the impact of coal mining legacy on the proposed development. Members are therefore advised that any grant of consent must be referred to the Scottish Ministers under Circular 3: 2009 - ‘Notification of Planning Applications’ in terms of Coal Risk not being adequately addressed.
25. Scottish Water did not respond to the consultation at the time of writing this report.
26. West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) noted the proposed development falls within an area of some archaeological sensitivity based on the presence of sites and finds of post-medieval, medieval and prehistoric date in the surrounding landscape. The application contains 3 recorded sites, the main house and its designed landscape, the stables and the dovecot. The application also involves a reasonably large greenfield area which has not previously been developed. In the interests of the sustainable development of such sites, it is important that all environmental issues are considered at an early stage, including any implications for archaeological remains which may be present. WOSAS also advise that the designed landscape is heavily overgrown and compromised and it is up to the Council to decide whether they wish to preserve this landscape by refusing the development as a whole. Otherwise, a condition could be added which would ensure no works commence until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation.
Noted, a negative suspensive condition for a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation can be attached, should Members decide to grant consent.
27. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) is unable to provide advice on this species survey until a species protection plan has been produced. Once this is available SNH will be happy to advise but only if you are uncertain about:
• the adequacy of the survey and protection plan; • whether a species licence will be needed; or • the prospects of a species licence being granted.
This information has not been submitted with the application. However SNH’s comments are welcomed overall, and notwithstanding the Ecology Report, would be of particular assistance in determining whether protected species are on site, particularly so given the undisturbed and mature nature of the estate and the Planning Authority’s legal obligations in this respect given its requirement to comply with European and British protected species legislation.
28. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) considers that the proposals will affect the Dovecote (A listed). The detailed housing layout for the site should be informed by and retain the Category A listed Doocot’s prominent setting in the landscape. Development should be set at a sufficient distance from the structure to avoid obscuring its open north west views. HES note that the Design and Access Statement includes reference to discussions with the Ayrshire Heritage Trust concerning restoration options for the building. A best practice led conservation programme for the doocot’s restoration that could facilitate sensitive reuse of the structure should be developed to help secure its long term future.
29. HES also note that the proposals make reference to the proposed demolition of the category C listed 18th century Treesbank stable block. It is national policy that a positive attempt should always be made by the planning authority to achieve the retention, restoration and sympathetic conversion of listed buildings. HES’ role in this application relates to impacts on category A listed buildings alone. However, HES would be likely to object to an application for Listed Building Consent for demolition unless this is clearly justified, and would encourage the options for retention to be fully explored.
HES’ comments are noted, and as outlined above, detailed pre- application discussions were held with the applicant and agent over a number of occasions to the effect that an application for planning permission in principle should not be submitted as it would not be possible to assess the impact on the listed buildings on the site at that PPP stage. This view was consistently expressed to the applicant and his agent over the pre-application meetings. Members should note the Planning Service cannot refuse to assess a PPP application; however, such an application does have its limitations, especially on historic sites with a number of built and natural environmental designations. It is of significance and of particular concern that a PPP application has been lodged with the Planning Authority despite the level of pre-application discussion and engagement provided by council officers that the supporting information lodged by the applicant does not raise the impacts on the built heritage assets within the estate.
30. Scottish Civic Trust did not respond to the consultation at the time of writing this report.
31. Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland did not respond to the consultation at the time of writing this report.
32. Scottish Power - no objections.
33. Scotland Gas Networks - no objections, noting that there is a high pressure gas pipeline in the vicinity that requires to be taken account of.
34. Connect Roads noted this location is not adjacent to the section of the A77 maintained by Connect M77/GSO plc. and suggested that the Planning Authority refer to the response from Transport Scotland.
35. Transport Scotland advised that they have no objections to the application, subject to the following issues being addressed via any potential grant of consent: [i] details of the lighting within the site; [ii [] details of the frontage landscaping treatment along the trunk road; and [iv] no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system.
Members are advised these issues can be controlled via the imposition of negative suspensive conditions, ensuring that the above information is submitted prior to any works commencing on site and/or with any subsequent detailed application.
REPRESENTATIONS
36. 3 letters of objection have been received following neighbour notification and public advertisement of the proposals from 5 separate parties. No letters of support were received. The points are summarised below:
Administrative
37. The Arboricultural Report and Flood Risk Assessment bears the applicant’s name, giving the impression that the applicant was involved in the survey works.
The clients name appears as more of a reference to the client commissioning the works. There is no indication that the applicant was involved in the survey works except for paying for them.
Flooding/Drainage
38. This land runs downhill from the treeline towards the existing houses in Loreny Drive. There are various burns running across the field and beyond. When the owner previously dug up land to form a mound from the wooded area to the existing trees, our garden became saturated with water, and this is now an on-going occurrence.
The Council’s Flood Officer has noted that it is imperative that the applicant ensures that all areas of this application are outwith this floodplain or, otherwise, identified by further Flood Risk Assessment mitigation measures, for any section that is proposed to remain within this outline, such that there is as a minimum a neutral effect on the flood plain. This has to yet been demonstrated, and furthermore SEPA have objected to the application on flooding grounds, not only on the methodology and results of the Flood Risk Assessment but on the proposed indicative design regarding drainage of the site. Inadequate information has been submitted by the applicant in respect of flooding and drainage.
Traffic and Transportation
39. Health and safety of residents in the area- due to increased traffic – including site traffic during any development; and traffic generated from the development especially at peak times – Loreny Drive is busy already and is the main bus route round Shortlees. There are many elderly people and families with children living in this area and the increased traffic could lead to an increase in traffic accidents, noise and CO2 pollution.
There would undoubtedly be some disruption to neighbouring properties if the development was approved overall, however, this would not be until consent was granted for any detailed plans, should Members approve this application. There would be some localised impacts on the surrounding road network; however this would be of a temporary nature. Notwithstanding this, the current application is in principle only, however Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) have noted the submitted Transport Assessment (TA) does not meet with the aspirations or needs of ARA, despite prior meetings to scope the assessment. This represents the first opportunity to consider the various transport issues and to create a benchmark for everything that follows. Scoping further enables developers to clarify whether the transport elements of their proposals are likely to be acceptable or whether additional analysis or measures will be required. A TA was submitted with the application which did not take account of the matters agreed at scoping stage.
Natural Environment; Fauna
40. The preservation of the natural environment - protected species, on site as well as rare orchids. There are many butterflies, pollinators, birds and animals contributing to the eco system in this area. This site is listed for nature conservancy and should be protected as such, especially with regard to the rookery, owls, badgers, red squirrels, newts.
Sites at planning permission in principle (PPP) stage for an intensive level of development are often greenfield release sites at the edge of settlements, and general assumptions can be made on their ecological value based on their previous management. For example, areas of agriculture are more likely to have a common ecological value, dependant on how intensely managed they might be with mice, voles, birds, foxes etc. as commonly found, notwithstanding there is always the opportunity for individual species to use any particular site if site conditions are suitable (especially if having features such as waterways).
41. Full badger, otter and water vole, bat, bird and archaeological surveys should be carried out as part of the planning application – no mention was made in the arboricultural report of the rookery in the Scots Pine trees by the main entrance to the estate off the B3708 Ayr road. I have recorded a range of mammals and birds on this site, (the objector noted a list of some 32 birds, including 5 on the RSPB’s red list and 5 on the amber list). A full environmental assessment should be carried out to assess the potential damage this proposed development would cause and steps taken in the proposals to address this.
Treesbank Estate as a site, is not the type of site commonly found for release for large scale development, and is typical to similar sites such as Craig House at Gatehead, or Rowallan at Kilmaurs, whereby an estate of some antiquity is developed. In the case of Treesbank, the estate grounds themselves are very old, being a designed landscape, probably laid out in the first half of the 18th century, and expanded by the mid-19th century, notwithstanding there are records of the old house going back to 1672. With respect to ecological value, it is likely, given [i] the length of time the estate has been largely free of development and thereby on the whole undisturbed, and [ii] the features of the estate i.e. the Simon’s Burn and the very mature wooded setting, that this site has a higher ecological value than most which are put forward for development.
In both Craig House and Rowallan Castle examples, these have been for enabling development supporting the rehabilitation of the ‘parent’ listed building, and therefore resultant new build development has been kept to a minimum, and this the impacts on the wider ecology of the estates has been kept to a minimum. In the example at Treesbank, however, the estate is intended for the intensive development of housing, with no enabling works, and a proposal to potentially demolish the Category C listed Stable Block.
An Ecology Report has been submitted in support of the application. This cites that no evidence of badgers, bats, otters were recorded within the site albeit the site is good habitat for such. No evidence of water voles was found, and the report notes the watercourses on site do not provide ideal habitat for water voles due to the banks being either scrub or bare, and in both cases lacking suitable established emergent/ marginal vegetation, which water voles require. Evidence of squirrels was recorded within the Site, including feeding signs in the form of characteristically chewed pine cones, noting it is not possible to differentiate between feeding signs of grey and red squirrel.
The Ecology Report also notes that suitable habitats for nesting birds were recorded within the Site, including woodland, scrub, and grassland habitats. Buildings including Treesbank House and the dovecot may offer some potential for roosting barn owls. Additionally, buzzards were recorded alarm calling within the woodland, suggesting residence within the Site and the potential presence of a breeding pair.
Riparian habitat as well as terrestrial habitats recorded within the Site, including rough grassland, scrubland and broadleaved woodland, have potential to support great crested newt.
The survey was carried out following the methodology described in the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for Environmental Audit1, with an assessment of habitat suitability for protected species, including; mammals, nesting birds and herptiles (amphibians and reptiles). SNH responded to the consultation noting they are unable to provide advice on the species survey until a species protection plan has been produced. This further indicates that the submission is lacking in information on protected species.
Natural Environment; Flora
42. To the east of Treesbank House, is a large area of natural succession, marshy grassland with willow, hawthorn, elder, and marsh vegetation such as sedges, rushes, marsh willowherb and common spotted orchid. The marshy grassland has a prominent knowe, that existing as a fantastic viewpoint, with excellent views across Shortlees to Kilmarnock and beyond.
The Ecology Repot does not enter into a great deal of detail in terms of underlying flora, with the exception to describe the various plants etc. in terms of their potential for habitats, but to note primarily the trees in the site, ash, beech, sycamore, pedunculate oak, silver birch, elm, holly , common hawthorn, scots pine and spruce. The small area of swampy ground in the large pasture to the east of the house is host to supporting bulrush, meadowsweet and purple moorgrass.
43. This area is a well-used local resource, known as Morton’s Woods with fine specimen trees. The pasture to the north of the estate has well defined footpaths, used by locals. These pasture areas are more suited to housing. I object to the wooded areas being removed for housing, trees absorb carbon dioxide, reduce Co2 and global warming and assist in the absorption of rainfall, reducing the effects of run-off.
The application is supported by a Tree Survey drawing, which shows trees categorised per their condition, however, there is also an accompanying schedule of broad description as to the groups of trees, with mention of some specific trees. The Tree Survey drawing shows a belt of trees to the south and east of the walled garden as being Category A, with some sporadic trees to the west of Treesbank House and some along the access from Ayr Road.
The masterplan indicates three sectors for housebuilding. The tree belt encircling the pasture to the north of the house is shown as Category A. This wooded area is shown to be retained, and it forms a separate enclosure for the area as such for housebuilding. To the east of the house between the House and Loreny Drive, and the A77, is currently a more open area of land, and this is shown as a distinct area for housebuilding. The third area to the west, south and south east of the House, indicates where most of the broadleafed trees would be felled to make way for housing, including an area of Category A trees. This area is also host to the House (B listed), Doocot (A listed), and Stables (C listed) as historic structures.
ASSESSMENT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT PLAN
44. Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises of four separate plans. These are the Opencast Coal Subject Plan 2003, the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan 2007, the East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 and the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan (EALDP) which was adopted by the Council on 3 April 2017. The topics contained in the Structure and Local Plans are superseded by the EALDP with the exception of policies relating to minerals. On this basis, the policies relevant to general development are contained solely within the EALDP and it is these policies which are considered in detail below.
Summary of the proposals
45. A primary vehicular route connecting Ayr Road with Loreny Drive has been proposed with shared surface routes leading into each plot area. It should be ensured that, in accord with the Scottish Government’s Designing Streets policy statement, each plot area has residential units facing onto the primary vehicular route to ensure it is an integral part of the development. Street design should provide good connectivity for all modes of movement and for all groups of users. The proposal seeks to create a distinct pedestrian path network however there are notable gaps in pedestrian connections within all plots to the ‘primary pedestrian routes’. The pedestrian path network can be unattractive for more vulnerable members of communities as paths tend to be less overlooked, animated, and accessible spaces than the streets. Path networks, therefore, are considered to function as secondary pedestrian routes that supplement the street network. The street network of the proposal, in turn, should be designed to function as the primary pedestrian route that allows ‘walkable access to local amenities for all street users thereby increasing connectivity throughout the site and beyond.
46. The proposed layout is considered to fall short of the expectations of the street network as the primary pedestrian route as traversing the distinct path network appears to be necessary for pedestrians to get from place to place. This degree of segregation is not considered to be appropriate to the place status of the site, equitable to vulnerable members of our communities who are unlikely to use the path network, and contrary to the principals of Designing Streets – in particular the key consideration of streets being places that ‘allow for and encourage social interaction’.
47. In addition there are a small number of areas of the site where cul-de-sacs are proposed. Cul-de-sacs discourage a well-connected street pattern. Taking into account the comments above, the applicant needs to reconsider the design layout of the proposed development to ensure it is fully in accord with the Scottish Government Designing Streets Policy Statement. The Design and Access Statement provides information concerning primary and secondary pedestrian routes but does not provide any information about the provision for cycle paths. However, the Transport Assessment submitted states that the proposed roads and shared surfaces throughout the development site will be low speed by design and therefore suitable for use by all cyclists.
48. The public open space proposed to be provided on site meets the minimum standards of Schedule 8 of the LDP, however, the design of how these spaces are distributed around the site and integrated with the housing requires to be reconsidered. Although an area of recreational open space (see Public Open Space Map of Design and Access Statement) is proposed to be provided in the centre of the site and to the north east of the site the remaining proposed recreational open space seems to effectively act as screening/buffering between the site, proposed general public open space and the A77 trunk road. The primary distributor road and pedestrian route also cuts through this area. Any design should ensure that the recreational and amenity open space is more effectively incorporated into the proposed residential development.
Overarching Policy OP1:
49. All development proposals will require to meet the following criteria in so far as they are relevant, or otherwise demonstrate how their contribution to sustainable development in the context of the subsequent relevant policies in the LDP and Scottish Planning Policy would outweigh any lack of consistency with the relevant criteria:
(i) Comply with the provisions and principles of the LDP vision and spatial strategy, all relevant LDP policies and associated supplementary guidance and non-statutory guidance;
This point cannot be assessed fully, with this application being in principle only. Certain assumptions therefore have to be made on the indicative layout. Should Members grant consent, any subsequent application would require to be assessed against this policy. Members are advised that the indicative capacity for the site, as noted in the LDP, is for 400 units.
For a development of 550 housing units, when any detailed application is being assessed, the requirement will be 63 square metres of recreational green infrastructure/open space per household. Based on the proposed 550 residential units this equates to 34,650 square metres of recreational green infrastructure/open space to be required on site. Amenity green infrastructure/open space of 20 square metres per household is required to be delivered on site. Based on the proposed 550 houses this equates to 11,000 square metres of amenity green infrastructure/open space to be required on site. However the location of these spaces, and usability, requires further consideration. Not only it is difficult to determine from the indicative masterplan layout whether the minimum public and private open space standards have been met by the applicant, but further information is required as to how accessible the proposed public open space will be. In addition, this information will provide assistance in determining if the additional 150 residential units proposed can be comfortably accommodated on site.
(ii) Be fully compatible with surrounding established uses and have no unacceptable impacts on the environmental quality of the area;
As above, whilst there are no detailed plans to assess, in principle this proposal is for a residential use, which should not impact significantly on the adjacent uses, which are also residential in nature, or agricultural.
(iii) Ensure that the size, scale, layout, and design enhances the character and amenity of the area and creates a clear sense of place;
As noted above, there are no detailed plans to assess this element, which would be assessed in any subsequent application.
(iv) Where possible, reuse vacant previously developed land in preference to greenfield land;
The site is greenfield in nature.
(v) Be of the highest quality design by meeting with the provisions of SPP, the Scottish Government’s policy statement Designing Streets, the Council’s Design Guidance and any masterplan/design brief prepared for the site;
As noted above, there are no detailed plans to assess this element, which would be assessed in any subsequent application.
(vi) Prepare Masterplans/Design Statements in line with Planning Advice Notes 83 and 68 respectively where requested by the Council and/or where this is set out as a requirement in Volume 2 of the LDP;
An indicative Masterplan has been submitted with the application, noting key considerations of topography and landscape; and design considerations, mainly of using the existing pasture areas to define individual hosing sectors. The Masterplan seeks to have an area of historic setting, which the Design and Access Statement notes the preservation of the historic setting of Treesbank House as being integral to the design concept.
Should Members approve this application, a more detailed site masterplan which creates a distinct place, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Designing Streets policy statement and the green infrastructure/open space standards as set out in Schedule 8 of the East Ayrshire LDP. However Members are advised that the applicant was advised not to submit an application in principle (PPP) as this would render it impossible to assess the potential effects on the listed structures and their respective settings, as noted in the consultation response, above, from Historic Environment Scotland.
(vii) Be compatible with, and where possible implement, projects shown on the LDP placemaking maps;
The LDP placemaking maps note the site is shown as proposed housing growth area for 2015 – 2025, therefore the proposal is compatible with this in principle.
(viii) Ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of safeguarded areas of open space/green infrastructure and prime quality agricultural land;
The area does have an amount of Category 3(2) good quality agricultural land. The loss of the good quality agricultural is likely to have some significant negative environmental impacts on soil within the immediate area. There will also be loss of green infrastructure, albeit that is not safeguarded areas of open space.
(ix) Protect and enhance natural and built heritage designations and link to and integrate with green infrastructure where possible;
As noted above, there are no detailed plans to assess this element, which would be assessed in any subsequent application, however the location of these spaces requires further consideration in respect of how usable and accessible these spaces would be. It also has to be taken into account, that in order to provide the 550 units on site, a large area of Category A woodland would require to be felled (which is also covered by Tree Preservation Order), and the respective habitats that are supported in this area would also be lost. The proposal therefore in places, protects the natural and built heritage designations, but conversely, in places, will destroy some natural heritage designations.
(x) Ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on the landscape character or tourism offer of the area;
As noted above, this would also be assessed in any subsequent application, noting that the site is largely enclosed by the mature planting.
(xi) Meet with the requirements of all relevant service providers and the Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA); and
There are outstanding issues in terms of the relevant service providers and ARA in particular:
• The indicative capacity of the site overall; • Provision of both public and private open space • Flooding, (inc. Flood routes, FFLs and the adequacy of the FRA); • Engineering of watercourses etc.; • Coal Mining History; • The impact on the setting of listed buildings; • Potential demolition of a listed building; • Removal of excellent quality protected trees • The potential destruction of existing habitats • Noise Impacts; and • Traffic and Transportation Impacts.
(xii) Be accessible to all.
The application is also accompanied by a Design and Access Statement noting the strategic design has included accessibility issues, which will be assessed again at any detailed stage, should Members decide to grant consent.
In summary, it is considered that given the additional units proposed, the application fails to demonstrate that it can reasonably accommodate a further 150 houses over the allocated number proposed in LDP 2017, and the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy OP1.
Overarching Policy OP2 – Implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report and Mitigation/Enhancement Measures
50. This policy states that in bringing forward their proposals, developers will require to implement the relevant enhancement and mitigation measures contained within the Environmental Report relating to the appropriate site assessments for residential, business and industrial, retail and other LDP site allocations. Proposals failing to do this will not be supported by the Council. The requirements set out below shall be by the developer for the site to comply with Policy OP2:-
• existing landscape character to be retained as much as possible with residential development being integrated into the site’s setting in order to minimise the significant negative impacts on the landscape;
• Development of the site should ensure that as much of the ancient and semi-natural woodland is retained, particularly those areas of woodland that act as natural screening against the adjacent A77 trunk road;
• Where trees are lost as a result of development, the design of a proposal should add new natural landscape features that retain the sense of place that the woodland has created.
• Development of the site should integrate the area of the proposed development site designated as the Treesbank Estate Local Nature Conservation Site and the area protected by the Treesbank Tree Preservation Order (TPO/5/1993) within the design. In addition development of the site should be informed by a Phase 1 habitat survey. If there is any loss to either or both resources, then there should be corresponding areas of new wildlife habitat and trees provided.
• The developer will be required to further investigate the flooding issues associated with the site and contact SEPA at an early stage in the development process concerning the issue.
• A public bus stop should be provided within a sustainable location close to the development site in order to provide access to a sustainable mode of transport and to reduce trips made by car;
• The listed buildings located on site and their setting (Treesbank, Dovecote and Stables) require careful consideration as part of the design and layout of the proposed development. The design and layout of the site should be sympathetic to these listed buildings and their settings and may require the input of a conservation accredited architect. This will ensure that any impact on the buildings themselves and their setting is minimised;
• The layout of the site should incorporate both amenity and recreational green infrastructure/open space in order to create a sense of place and provide links to the Central Scotland Green Network and existing path networks.
In terms of Policy OP2 the proposed development has been assessed against the Environmental Report of the Proposed Local Development Plan for Site 317H. This notes at the outset, that for natural features, development of this site is likely to have environmental impacts on all of these environmental receptors, on soil and water (potential for soil and groundwater contamination), environmental impacts on air due to the increase in the number of private cars that are likely to be as a result of development of the site, and on the listed buildings within its boundaries. As the effects at Stage 1 were found to be likely to be significant environmental impacts for Treesbank, a Stage 2 Assessment was carried out. This noted that in addition to the ancient and semi-natural woodland, there are likely to be impacts on the provisional wildlife site and the TPO, which both nearly encapsulate the entire site. Loss of these resources is likely to have corresponding impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna and could lead to fragmentation of habitats and species within the area. Therefore, it is likely that development of the site will have significant negative impacts, and mitigation is therefore required.
Mitigation suggested that development of the site should aim to integrate the provisional wildlife site and the TPO within its design. Development of the site should also be informed by a Phase 1 habitat study, and where there is any loss to resources, then there should be corresponding areas of new wildlife habitat and trees provided. Again, even though these mitigation measures will help to offset development, loss of these established resources cannot be replaced on a like for like basis. Therefore, should these mitigation measures be employed then it is likely that there will still be significant positive and negative impacts on these resources. The Environmental Report goes on to note that the listed buildings and their setting will have to be carefully considered. The design and layout of the site should be carefully done and may require the input of a conservation accredited architect to ensure that any impact on the buildings themselves and their setting is minimised. However, it is considered that even if the mitigation measures here are incorporated there will be still be a significant loss to the setting of the listed buildings.
Furthermore, the Environmental Report noted that the developer will be required to investigate the flooding issues further and contact with SEPA at an early stage is required to formulate any flood mitigation measures that may be required. SEPA’s response is noted above at paragraphs 21, 22 and 23.
In terms of the mitigation measures contained with the Environmental Report which Policy OP2 requires the applicant to address, it is considered that the applicant has not incorporated all of these mitigation measures as far as can be reasonably expected. In particular, the application is in principle, and as the plans are indicative, the effect on the setting of the listed buildings cannot be established. Furthermore, whilst the Ecology Report states no protected species are identified on site, it is reasonable to deduce, given the broadleaf wooded extents that have been in place for centuries, that at the very least, bats would be transecting the site. The massive scale of development proposed will ln some areas, remove large areas of habitat that is potentially long established, and cannot be replaced, however mitigation can be the establishment of new habitats; however any such works have to be carefully considered at a detailed stage - the current application, for example, suggests the introduction of new water features within a detailed drainage strategy, which has the potential to create new habitats, however, the measures suggested, such as re-direction of watercourses is not recognised as being supported by SEPA’s consultation response. Overall, the proposal is contrary to Policy OP2 at this stage.
Policy RES1: New Housing Development
51. The Council will encourage and support the residential development of:
(i) Housing Development Opportunity Sites identified for housing purposes on the LDP maps at the stated indicative capacities. All new residential developments must contribute positively to the principles of good placemaking as set out in overarching policy OP1, the placemaking sections of the LDP and the Councils Design Guidance. Residential developments will require to meet with Public and Private Open Space Standards set out in schedule 8 of the LDP.
The application site lies within the allocated site of 317H. As noted in the summary of the proposal at paragraphs 45-48 above, the indicative layout suggests a number of fundamental issues that require to be resolved before an application for 550 units is approved. In this case, provision of public open space and how it is distributed around the site and integrated with the housing requires to be reconsidered, as does whether private open space/garden grounds proposed meet the Council’s standards; in essence, there is insufficient information to determine whether 550 units can be accommodated on this site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy RES 1.
Policy RES 3: Affordable Housing
52. The Council will require the provision of affordable housing:-
(i) on those sites specifically identified and reserved for such purposes on the LDP maps;
The site is an identified site for housing but not for affordable housing as such.
(ii) on all sites of 30 or more houses proposed in the Kilmarnock & Loudoun sub housing market area. Within such developments, 25% of houses will require to be affordable in nature;
The application proposes the development of 550 residential units on the site, therefore 138 of these units will be required to be affordable in nature. The applicant’s schedule of accommodation as contained in the Design and Access Statement requires to be amended in order for the proposal to be in accordance with Policy RES3. Affordable housing requirements should be conditioned at PPP stage to ensure that on any approved PPP application a condition requiring the provision is carried through to any detailed planning stage. The Design and Access Statement does not accord with Policy RES3, in that 64 units are proposed as affordable, albeit this could technically be the subject of a planning condition ensuing that affordable levels of housing are met.
Policy RES 11: Residential Amenity
53. The Council will, at all times, seek to protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas. In this regard, there will be a general presumption against:
(i) the establishment of non-residential uses within, or in close proximity to, residential areas which potentially have detrimental effects on local amenity or which cause unacceptable disturbance to local residents;
The proposed use is residential in nature and should not give rise to any significant issues in terms of the adjacent residential amenity.
(ii) the development for other uses, of locally important areas of recreational or amenity open space which contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the residential area concerned, or which offer opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation;
There are no such designated locally important areas of recreational or amenity open space within the site, notwithstanding there is benefit from the site in its historic and also current form to the surrounding community in terms of access to the intrinsic wildlife using the site, including potentially protected species, and the rich biodiversity of the site overall.
(iii) the removal of play equipment from areas of recreational open space;
N/A
(iv) the closure or disruption of existing footpaths which provide important links between housing areas and areas of public open space, local shops and other community facilities, transportation nodes etc.;
N/A
With regard to the establishment of new residential areas, new housing developments will not be permitted in locations where existing, established adjacent uses are likely to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of future residents.
As noted above, the proposed use is residential in nature and should not give rise to any significant issues in terms of the adjacent residential amenity.
Overall, the proposal accords in the main with Policy RES 11, with the exception of the development of this site as a locally important areas of recreational or amenity open space which contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the residential area concerned, or which offers opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation.
Policy T1: Transportation requirements for new developments
54. The Council will require developers to ensure that their proposals meet with all the requisite standard of the ARA and align with the regional and Local Transport Strategies. Developments which do not meet these standards will not be considered acceptable and will not receive Council Support.
The TA was scoped with ARA but unfortunately on submission, did not cover the issues that ARA raised. Whilst a second TA was drafted for the attention of ARA, it was not submitted to the Planning Service as part of the application process overall. The TA which was submitted with the application did not take account of the matters agreed at scoping stage. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy T1.
Policy INF 2: Installation of Next Generation Broadband
55. Policy INF2 notes that developers of new residential (or business and industrial developments will be required to install the necessary infrastructure to enable all new premises to be connected to the existing fibre optic network, where available in East Ayrshire, and in accordance with the relevant telecommunications provider’s standards. Developers will be required to ensure that all new premises have a full fibre connection to the network ensuring that next generation broadband speeds of 100 Megabytes per second and above can be provided
In accord with Policy INF2 the developer of Treesbank will be required to install the necessary infrastructure to enable all new premises to be connected to the existing fibre optic network, where available in East Ayrshire, and in accordance with the relevant telecommunication provider’s standards. They are also required to ensure that all new premises have a full fibre connection to the network ensuring that next generation broadband speeds of 100 Megabytes per second and above can be provided. This can be controlled at any subsequent application stage, should Members decide to grant consent. If this matter is conditioned, the application will accord with Policy INF2.
56. Policy INF 4: Green Infrastructure
The Council will require development to take a design led approach to delivering green infrastructure. Opportunities for green infrastructure delivery should be incorporated as an integral part of the design of developments to enhance and link to existing open spaces/green infrastructure and create new green infrastructure assets as appropriate. The Council will require new development to meet with the public and private open space standards set out in Schedule 8 and the provisions of the Council’s Design Guidance. The provision of open space/green infrastructure should be a core component of any Masterplan.
The Council has produced Supplementary Guidance to the LDP. It sets out key design principles that the Council expects developers to incorporate into their developments including green infrastructure/open space requirements. Policy INF4 requires development to take a design led approach to delivering green infrastructure which should be an integral part of the design of development to enhance and link to existing green infrastructure/open space and create new green infrastructure assets as appropriate. INF4 requires new development to meet with public and private open space standards as set out in Schedule 8 and the provisions of the Council’s design guidance. The provision of green infrastructure/open space should be a core component of the proposed development masterplan.
In accord with Schedule 8, the proposed development will be required to provide the minimum standard for recreational green infrastructure/open space on site. Developments of more than 200 sites will be required to provide recreational open space on site, as these larger sites will put greater pressure on the existing resource. Furthermore, due to the scale of the proposed development, the developer will be required to provide well located, recreational green infrastructure/open space on site to the minimum standards set out in Schedule 8 in order to meet good standards of design and create successful places.
For this development, the requirement will be 63 sqm of recreational green infrastructure/open space (including large equipped play areas and playing fields) per household. Based on the proposed 550 residential units this equates to 34,650 sqm of recreational green infrastructure/open space to be required on site.
Amenity green infrastructure/open space of 20 sqm per household is required to be delivered on site. Based on the proposed 550 houses this equates to 11,000 sqm of amenity green infrastructure/open space to be required on site. The masterplan submitted to support the application proposes the requirements for recreational green infrastructure/open space and amenity green infrastructure/open space as above. However the location of these spaces requires further consideration.
Statutory supplementary guidance on public and private green infrastructure open space standards is currently being prepared and due for publication in 2017. If approved by Scottish Ministers at the time of a full planning application then the developer will be required to take this supplementary guidance into full consideration. Should Members decide to grant consent, whilst usually, any subsequent application will require to be assessed against this, in this instance, given the increase in house units proposed compared with the allocated number advised by the LDP, it is difficult to determine from the indicative masterplan layout whether the minimum private open space standards of Schedule 8 have been met by the applicant. Further information is therefore required in relation to the minimum residential private open space proposed on site. In addition, this information will provide assistance in determining if the additional 150 residential units proposed can be comfortably accommodated on site. The proposal therefore overall fails to demonstrate that it complies with Policy ENV4.
57. Policy INF 5: Developer Contributions
Where a development of 4 or more houses, retail or commercial leisure development either on its own, or in association with existing developments, will place additional demands on facilities, infrastructure or services that would necessitate new facilities or exacerbate deficiencies in existing provision, the Council will require the developer to meet or contribute to the cost of providing or improving such infrastructure, facilities or services. Developer contributions will therefore be required for this proposed development. Supplementary guidance which will support policy INF5 is in the process of being approved by Scottish Ministers. The guidance will provide further detail on the cost of projects and how the developer contributions will be calculated. As it has not yet been formally approved, the Council cannot seek contributions, in terms of the relevant placemaking projects for Kilmarnock. The calculations have therefore been determined using the existing projects identified in the existing approved Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance. Therefore with respect to the application, the developer contribution payable in this instance would be calculated as follows:
Relevant Criterion Cost per Unit No. of Units Total Cost Administrative fee £60 £33,000 Corridor Wide £198 Kilmarnock £ 550 £0 (Settlement)
Total £258 £141,900
Contributions sought under this policy will be waived or reduced only in exceptional circumstances. The developer will be required to fully demonstrate why contributions should be waived or reduced.
58. In addition, the Council will seek early consultation with the appropriate Council Services or bodies, such as Education Services, Health and Social Care Partnership and the Ayrshire Roads Alliance to identify if the proposed development would place any additional demands on facilities, infrastructure or services or if it would exacerbate deficiencies in existing provision. If additional demands or deficiencies are identified then there might be a need to seek additional financial contributions.
The applicant would require to enter into a legal agreement to ensure developer contributions are secured against any subsequent application, dependant on the number of house units, at a rate of £258 per unit. On 23 February 2017, Council agreed the current rate of developer contribution would continue whilst the new Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is under consideration by the Scottish Government. Also if Members grant consent, the developer would require to provide at their expense, a contribution to the junction capacity and safety improvements for the Bellfield Interchange for the southbound off at the rate of £68,750 (pro rata, i.e. based on the unit numbers proposed), and which should also be provided as part of any legal agreement. The applicant has noted their willingness to pay the rate of contribution, in this respect, the proposal will accord with Policy INF5.
Policy ENV1 Listed Buildings
59. Policy ENV1 notes that Listed buildings play an important role in defining and enhancing the quality of East Ayrshire’s environment and contribute to the character of local communities. The Council will support:
• The retention and preservation of all listed buildings and buildings within conservation areas. • The adaption and re-use of listed buildings and buildings within conservation areas to meet modern requirements, where this can be achieved in a manner sensitive to the character of the building.
60. Proposals for the total or partial demolition of a listed building will only be supported where it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been made to retain the building. Demolition will only be acceptable where it can be evidenced that:
(i) the building is not of special interest; or (ii) the building is incapable of repair; or (iii) the demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community; or (iv) the repair of the building is not economically viable and that it has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential purchasers for a reasonable period.
The application site contains the following listed buildings:
Doocot Category A listed; Stables at Treesbank Category C(S) listed; Treesbank Category B listed, and Walled garden (not listed separately but listed by curtilage).
The listed buildings, including their respective settings, should therefore be carefully considered as part of the design and layout of the proposal. Notwithstanding that the settings of the listed buildings is unable to be assessed at PPP stage, the applicant does not propose to remove or carry out any works to Treesbank House, or the Doocot. The application states that it proposes to enhance the setting of the Doocot building, however, in the consultation response from Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Members should note that this states that the proposals will affect the A listed Doocot. In terms of the potential works to the Stables, the application notes these are currently in a dangerous condition and considered to be beyond economic repair. It is proposed that the remains of the stables are taken down and any suitable stone is reused to form a new large garage for Treesbank house. HES have advised this would not be supported by national policy and they would be likely to object to such works.
Noting HES’ comments, in terms of the proposal to demolish the remains of the Stables buildings, Policy ENV1 supports the retention and preservation of all listed buildings in East Ayrshire. Proposals for the partial or total demolition of a listed building will only be supported where it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been made to retain the building. The applicant must provide supporting information that demonstrates that every effort has been made to retain the Stables building. Overall, it is not possible to assess the overall proposal in terms of the setting of the respective listed buildings at PPP stage (nor the effect of demolition of a listed building, noting that would require to be the subject of a separate consent), and it is considered the proposal fails to demonstrate that it complies with Policy ENV1.
There is overall, a lack of assessment and evaluation within the applicant’s supporting documentation in relation to the impact on the listed heritage assets within the Estate. The applicant was requested during the detailed pre-application discussions to lodge a full planning application in order to allow a detailed assessment to be made on the listed heritage assets within the site but has declined to do so.
Policy ENV4 Gardens and Designed Landscapes
61. Policy ENV4 notes that Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL) included in the National Inventory, and those of regional and local importance, are protected and their enhancement encouraged. Development will not be supported where it will have significant adverse impacts upon (i) its character; (ii) important views to, from and within it and; (iii) important features that contribute to its value and that justify its designation, where applicable. Where a proposed development will impact on a GDL, the developer will be expected to provide a landscape management plan, to identify conservation needs and direct how change can best be accommodated.
For noting, Members are advised that whilst the Treesbank Estate is a Designed Landscape, it is not included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL) in Scotland, but instead is one of the Landscapes in the Ayrshire Survey of GDL. It is widely recognised that many more gardens and designed landscapes exist than are included in the National Inventory, there being many other significant sites of national, regional or local value that could be worth conserving and that should be taken into account in the planning process. The consultation response from WOSAS notes that the GDL landscape is heavily overgrown and compromised and it is up to the Council to decide whether they wish to preserve this landscape by refusing the development as a whole. However, in this case, should Members decide to grant consent, such potential effects would also be assessed at any subsequent detailed stage. Members are advised to consider the value of Treesbank as a GDL and whether the proposal for 550 houses at principle stage would significantly affect what remains of the GDL, and whether that GDL is intrinsically worth protecting in its current form.
62. ENV6: Nature Conservation
The importance of nature conservation and biodiversity will be fully recognised in the assessment of development proposals. This will be achieved by ensuring that:
(i) Any development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site which is not directly connected with or necessary to its conservation management must be subject to a “Habitats Regulations Appraisal”. Such development will only be approved if the appraisal shows that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site;
N/A
(ii) Any development affecting a SSSI will only be permitted where it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated or where any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which it is designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance.
N/A
(iii) Any development that may adversely impact on areas of local importance for nature conservation, including provisional wildlife sites, local geodiversity sites and local nature reserves, will be expected to demonstrate how any impact can be avoided or mitigated.
The site is a locally important site for nature conservation, including its designation as a Local Nature Conservation Sites (previously known as provisional wildlife sites). Riccarton Ancient Woodland is located within the application site as well as an area of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO/5/1993). The Design and Access Statement submitted proposes to integrate and preserve the site’s existing woodland setting with selected removal on ‘non- critical’ tree species, notwithstanding the indicative design shows that a large areas of trees shown as Category A (excellent) felled to facilitate the building of houses, south of Treesbank House.
To comply with Policy ENV6, the applicant will be expected to demonstrate how any adverse impacts on this locally important area can be avoided or mitigated. If there is evidence that protected species may be affected by the development, steps must be taken to establish their presence. The planning and design of any development which has the potential to impact on a protected species will require to take into account the level of protection afforded by legislation. It is not considered the Phase 1 Habitat Survey submitted with the application is sufficient to conclusively demonstrate that the site is free of protected species, and therefore a precautionary approach should be taken. Overall the proposal does not meet with Policy ENV6.
(iv) If there is evidence that protected species may be affected by a development, steps must be taken to establish their presence. The planning and design of any development which has the potential to impact on a protected species will require to take into account the level of protection afforded by legislation and any impacts must be fully considered prior to the submission of any planning application.
The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Ecological Survey, but it is considered in this case given the maturity of the Estate and the undisturbed nature of the site, more detailed surveys should be provided.
(v) Any new development must protect, and where appropriate incorporate and/or extend, existing habitat networks, helping to further develop the Central Scotland Green Network in Ayrshire.
As noted above, this would also be assessed in any subsequent application, if Members chose to grant planning permission in principle, however, the removal of the large area of Category A condition trees to the south for Treesbank House , would not protect, and/or extend, existing habitat networks, and may fragment habitats.
Policy ENV9 Trees, Woodland and Forestry
63. This Policy notes the Council will support the retention of individual trees, hedgerows and woodlands within both settlements and rural areas, where such trees contribute to the amenity, nature conservation and landscape value of the area. There will be a presumption against the felling of ancient semi-natural woodlands and trees protected by Preservation Orders. Proposals that involve the removal of woodland will only be supported where it would achieve significant and clearly defined public benefits and is in line with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Policy.
As per the consultation response from the Council’s Outdoor Services the removal of the large tranche of Category A condition trees south of Treesbank House is contrary to this policy. A more thorough report will be required for the whole estate which will dictate the design of the site as highlighted in BS5837, as well as re- assessing the indicative masterplan which to take account of shadowing of existing trees for new properties, as well as the provision of quality open space areas for play and recreation.
Policy ENV 11 Flood Prevention
64. The Council will take a precautionary approach to flood risk from all sources and will promote flood avoidance in the first instance. Flood storage and conveying capacity will be protected and development will be directed away from functional flood plains and undeveloped areas of medium to high flood risk.
In addition to applying the risk framework, development proposals should:
• Take into account the specific characteristics of the site, the proposed development and the surrounding land uses; • Where appropriate, ensure that water resistant and/or resilient construction materials and measures are used; • Minimise impermeable surfaces and incorporate sustainable drainage systems, with adequate maintenance arrangements, to avoid increased surface water flooding; • Ensure flood protection measures allow a ‘freeboard allowance’, whereby additional height should be to the predicted level of a flood to make allowances for uncertainties in the predictions. Design, solutions should also include some leeway for the unknown effects of climate change; • Avoid land raising, which will only be acceptable where it has a neutral or better impact on flood risk outside of the raised area. Land raising will only be acceptable in the undeveloped or sparsely developed flood plain when it can be demonstrated that the proposed location is essential for operational reasons and a lower risk location is not available; and • Be accompanied by a Drainage Assessment, to the satisfaction of the Council, where drainage is already constrained or problematic.
As per the consultation response from both Ayrshire Roads Alliance (Flooding), and SEPA, the proposal does not contain sufficient information to assess the development as being largely free from flood risk, noting that SEPA’s indicative flood mapping was recently updated to include higher levels of potential inundation from flood waters in this area. The application as it is presented is contrary to this Policy.
65. ENV12: Water, air and light and noise pollution
Where developments are proposed on or close to existing water bodies, design solutions should explore how best to maintain their water quality and, where possible improve the water bodies through maintaining them as wildlife corridors where biodiversity can be improved. There will be a presumption against any development that will have an adverse impact on the water environment in terms of pollution levels and the ecological value of water habitats – and the Council will not be supportive of developments which will, or which have the potential to, cause significant adverse impacts on water bodies as a result of morphological changes to water bodies such as engineering activities in the form of culverts or changes to the banks or bed.. Also, all new development must take full account of any Noise Action Plan and Noise Management Areas that are in operation in the area and ensure that significant adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties and uses are avoided. A noise impact assessment may be required in this regard and noise mitigation measures may be required through planning conditions and/or Section 75 Obligations.
It is noted that in terms of maintaining and improving the quality of all water bodies and ground water, the proposal does not address this issue, and furthermore does introduce changes to existing watercourses through engineering operations, such as infilling/culverting and a permanent realignment of one of the tributaries of Simon’s Burn. This is contrary to the above policy.
Additionally, no data on road traffic noise has been submitted for assessment by the Council’s Environmental Health Service. A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) require to be submitted for consideration in this regard, and without this information, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV12 overall.
ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
66. The principal material considerations are the representations, consultation responses, Scottish Planning Policy, the applicant’s supporting information and the planning history of the site.
67. Planning History
01/0569/OL, Proposed Housing, Business & Industry (Classes 4 & 5), Open Space And Associated Works, Withdrawn, 24/02/2003.
11/0004/PREAPP, Erection of residential development with up to 50 dwellings and associated works, Approved 24/03/11
15/0018/PACSCR, Housing Development in line with local plan 2010 – Kilmarnock, Plot 317H. Approved, 29/06/2015.
16/0002/PACSCR, Proposed redevelopment of Treesbank Estate (42.38ha/104.75 acres) to provide approximately 500 houses including appropriate recreation and open space SUDS facility and 2 enhanced site entry points. Agreed - Major Development, 06/06/2016.
16/0009/PREAPP, Erection of Residential Development of approximately 600 dwellings and associated works. Agreed, 06/06/16.
16/0014/EIASCR, Screening Request for residential development of approximately 600 dwellings and associated works EIA not required, 30/06/2016, but noting as a minimum, ecological surveys to be submitted; as well as Transport Assessment; Flood Risk Assessment; Drainage Impact Assessment; Archaeology Surveys; and an Assessment of the impact of Listed Buildings; with any planning application.
68. Consultation Responses
The consultation responses have raised a number of issues which would indicate that the application should be refused in its present form. These include:-
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) objections on Flooding, adequacy of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and overall design matters; SNH is unable to provide advice on this species survey until a species protection plan has been produced; the Coal Authority, objection on the lack of a full Coal Mining Risk Assessment; Historic Environment Scotland (HES) regarding their comments that the proposal will affect the A listed Doocot, also that HES will not support the demolition of the C listed Stable Block as it is contrary to national policy; Concerns re the lack of flood route, finished floor levels and the lack of evidence via the FRA that demonstrates the site is free from flood risk from Ayrshire Roads Alliance; Inadequate Transport Assessment, including information on pedestrian connectivity; Lack of Noise Impact Assessment; Lack of Species information, including Species Protection Plans, Inadequate Tree Survey, and Lack of Assessment of the impact of Listed Buildings.
69. Applicant’s Supporting Information
The supporting information submitted by the applicant has been outlined previously in this report and is a material consideration in the determination of this application. There is an accompanying range of material submitted in support of the application, including:
Transport Assessment (TA); Tree Survey; Drainage Layout; Indicative site Masterplan; Phase 1 Ecology Report; Arboricultural Report; Archaeological Report; Flood Risk Assessment (FRA); and Design and Access Statement.
70. Whilst these documents all informed the application, there is a level of supporting information missing from the submission, which would have assisted greatly in assessing the proposal at 'in principle' stage. In terms of the TA and FRA, both are inadequate as submitted and need further revisions, as is the Tree Survey and the strategic drainage information submitted. Also, Habitat surveys tend to be termed under three types: Phase 1 Habitat Survey (initial baseline), Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey & Phase 2 Ecological Surveys. This application has a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, but an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey would have been more detailed, included species lists, remarks on biodiversity, legal and planning context, an appraisal of nature conservation value and identification of protected species or signs of their presence and other notable features, and potentially, would have informed any Species protection Plan. A Species Protection Plan provides a way of ensuring that, if protected species are present, they are taken into account within a development proposal. It uses survey information to identify how the proposal may impact on them and develops a clear way forward that enables the development to go ahead whilst safeguarding the species in question.
71. Material considerations in planning and similar types of decisions can be influenced by ecological factors such as local designations, UK or County BAP Priority habitats or species, and species listed in the UK Red Data Book or RSPB Birds of Conservation Concern. One objector has raised the issue of birds on the red list that use the site, and in terms of the precautionary principle, this information must be taken on a prima facie basis The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) has mapped a number of surveys is the area which show the butterflies, and birds as identified, but no mammals have been recorded. Cleary mammals are using the site, but have yet to be surveyed on the NBN, but this also shows that Daubenton’s and the Brown Long Eared Bat have both been surveyed 3km to the south west at Coodham, Pipistrelle 900m to the north in Shortlees, and Red Squirrel 1.7km (1 mile) to the north east at the Bellfield Estate.
72. Representations
Five objections were received. These raised issues material to the application, on flooding and drainage; flora and fauna; and traffic. Given the lack of detailed information in the submission to refute such claims, especially with regard to protected species, flooding, and habitats/flora/trees, it is considered these carry a certain degree of weight in the decision making process.
73. Designing Streets/Designing Places
These Scottish Government policies are based on the premise that good street design and good places should derive from an intelligent response to location, rather than the rigid application of standards. Previously, street layouts were based on hierarchy of vehicular movement, but ‘Designing Streets’ takes into account site specific requirements and through this, a higher sense of ‘place’ can be fostered, resulting in streets based less on how vehicles move through them, and more of a community function, especially in residential areas. Designing Places looks at how design can help with the social, economic and environmental goals of Scotland, focussing on key qualities such as identity; safe and pleasant spaces; and ease of movement. The Council has adopted Designing Streets as its main residential design guide until such time as new guidance is in place, however, it is noted that not all of the guidance and design in these documents are able to be maintained by the Council if roads and footways etc. are to be adopted. It is considered that the indicative masterplan does not meet with ‘Designing Streets’, noting however, this is a woodland site, with many constraints which will be difficult to accommodate every aspect this national policy requires.
74. Scottish Planning Policy
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) notes that local plan policies should cover a range of issues, including those for the provision of new housing, within a spatial strategy which reflects the development pressures, environmental assets, and economic needs of the area, reflecting the overarching aim of supporting diversification and growth of the rural economy (para 79). It is considered in this case that the development in some respects accords with the broad provisions of SPP, being supported in principle by the LDP policies. In particular, SPP advocates:
giving due weight to net economic benefit; making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure; supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development; supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water; and improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation.
However in some respects the proposal fails to conform with SPP, for example, it fails to demonstrate:-
supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places; supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk; having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy; protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment (noting the siting and design of development should take account of all aspects of the historic environment); protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment protect and enhance ancient semi-natural woodland as an important and irreplaceable resource, together with other native or long- established woods, hedgerows and individual trees with high nature conservation or landscape value; seek benefits for biodiversity from new development where possible, including the restoration of degraded habitats and the avoidance of further fragmentation or isolation of habitats; and avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality.
75. SPP also states (paragraph 220), in relation to public access, that “planning should protect, enhance and promote green infrastructure, including open space and green networks, as an integral component of successful place making” and “that the planning system should support development which “provide safe and convenient opportunities for walking and cycling for both active travel and recreation, and facilitate travel by public transport” (paragraph 270). IAs noted above, it is considered the proposal at this stage accords with some elements of SPP (economic benefit; supporting delivery of housing etc.;) but in other respects (including taking account of flood risk; protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment; protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment; and notably, avoiding over-development), that it does not accord with SPP.
Summary:
76. Members are advised that extensive pre-application discussions were held with the applicant and their agents on the potential submission of a planning application, given the scale of the development; the extensive transport infrastructure required; and implications for the [i] surrounding road network, [ii] natural heritage on site; [iii] built heritage on site; and [iii] constraints, such as watercourses affecting the site. At these discussions concerns were raised with the scale of development above the allocated unit numbers proposed, and the difficulties of assessing an application at PPP stage.
77. Also, with regard to The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 Members are also advised that in terms of the potential for protected species on site, that it is recognised ecosystems are complex and dynamic, and do not have clear boundaries. Although it is possible to develop a reasonable scientific understanding of simple ecosystems (e.g. certain agricultural systems), this is far harder for the majority of natural ecosystems. In the case of this application, a range of development options has not been considered, and information has been found to be lacking on a number of elements, including those concerning the natural environment. The precautionary principle is incorporated within national planning guidance, and in particular, if there is a risk of irreversible damage, the precautionary principle certainly applies.
78. SNH considers that a precautionary approach should apply if:
• there are uncertainties, which cannot be resolved, about the impacts of an activity on the natural heritage; • there is a risk of significant, widespread or irreversible damage; • the natural heritage in question is important, for example of national or international significance; •there are causal links between the proposed activity and perceived environmental damage.
79. Noting SNH’s advice in their consultation response, it is considered that the application as presented is not capable of determining the potential of protected species on site, and further ecological survey works is required.
COMMUNITY PLAN
80. The assessment of the proposal has regard to the main themes of The Community Plan with regard to the themes of safer communities, the environment and economy.
FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
81. There are legal implications for the Council in the determination of this application. The developer would be required to enter into a legal agreement with the Council to ensure that developer contributions amounting to £258 per unit, are paid in terms of Policy INF5 for any subsequent application, albeit legally linked to the planning permission in principle, should Members decide to grant consent. Also if Members grant consent, the developer would require to provide at their expense, a contribution to the junction capacity and safety improvements for the Bellfield Interchange for the southbound off at the rate of £68, 750 (pro rata, i.e. based on the unit numbers proposed), and which should also be provided as part of any legal agreement. Lastly, the issue of securing affordable units on site should also be covered by planning condition.
82. If Members decide to grant consent, there is a requirement to refer this application to the Scottish Government under Circular 3:2009 - ‘Notification of Planning Applications’, on the basis that there is an outstanding objection from the Coal Authority, and an outstanding objection from SEPA. It is further noted that SNH has not confirmed its acceptance of the proposal as noted below.
83 There are potential financial implications for the Council in coming to a view on this application as, should the Planning Committee be minded to refuse the proposed development, this could lead to an appeal by the applicant. Furthermore, if the Council is considered to have acted unreasonably in refusing the proposed development, a claim for an award of expenses could be made by the applicant. The Council would require to participate in whatever procedure is considered appropriate by the DPEA in order to put forward its case. This could be via further written representation, hearing or inquiry sessions or a combination of these methods. This therefore may also lead to further costs being incurred to the extent it may be necessary to either engage expert external advice, support or representation and/or to engage professional expert witnesses to give evidence on the Council’s behalf as necessary.
84. Members are also advised that in terms of potential for particular protected species to be on site, that some mammals and birds are protected nationally under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (numerous birds, and badgers for example, noting badgers are also protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Additionally, all bats are protected at European level under the Habitat Regulations (1994), as are great crested newts, and otters. As noted above, an extended survey (or series of surveys) is require to ensure any potential for these natural heritage assets on site is fully assessed, and until such times as his information is submitted, the requirements of the above legislation has not been met.
CONCLUSIONS
85. As indicated in previously of the report, the application is considered to be contrary to the local development plan (LDP) at principle stage. Therefore, given the terms of Section 25 and Section 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the application should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As is indicated at Section 6 of the report, there are material considerations relevant to this application. The consultation responses do not support the application, on balance.
86. Members will note the site is allocated for housing in the LDP, as it had also been in the EALP 2010, however, given the constraints on site of both natural and cultural/historic significance, including an A listed building noting to mention other listed buildings and potentially protected species, this application at PPP level does not demonstrate that the proposal can be carried out comfortably on a number of issues, namely in respect of: -
The indicative capacity of the site; Provision of both public and private open space Flooding, (inc. Flood routes, FFLs and the adequacy of the FRA); Engineering of watercourses etc.; Coal Mining History; The impact on the setting of listed buildings; Potential demolition of a listed building; Removal of excellent quality protected trees The potential destruction of existing habitats Noise Impacts; and Traffic and Transportation Impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
87. It is recommended that the application be refused subject to the reasons listed on the attached sheet.
CONTRARY DECISION NOTE
88. Should the Committee agree that the application be refused on principle of the development, contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development the application will require to be referred to the Council because that would represent a significant departure from the local development plan. However if Members agree that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the report, the application will not require to be referred to the Council because that would not represent a significant departure from the local development plan.
REASON FOR THE DECISION
The application is contrary to the development plan and the material considerations do not carry sufficient weight to suggest approval of the application.
13 June 2017
FV/MK
Michael Keane Head of Planning and Economic Development
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
1. Application Form and Plans. 2. Statutory Notices and Certificates. 3. Consultation responses. 4. Representations received. 5. Local Development Plan 2017. 6. Supporting statement and associated reports:- Transport Assessment; Tree Survey Drainage Layout; Indicative site Masterplan; Ecology Report; Arboricultural Report; Archaeological Report; Flood Risk Assessment; and Design and Access statement. 7. Designing Streets/Designing Places. 8. Scottish Planning Policy 2014. 9. Statutory Listing information and Buildings at Risk Register
Anyone wishing to inspect the above background papers should contact Marion Fergusson, Senior Planner on 01563 576769.
Implementation Officer: David McDowall, Operations Manager, Building Standards and Development Management
East Ayrshire Council
TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
Application No: 17/0139/PPP
Location Treesbank Kilmarnock East Ayrshire KA1 5LP
Nature of Proposal: Proposed residential development of approximately
550 dwellings and associated works
Name and Address of Applicant: Mr John Gardner
Treesbank House Ayr Road Kilmarnock KA1 5LP
Name and Address of Agent Halliday Fraser Munro
Stanhope House Stanhope Place
Edinburgh EH12 5HH
Officer’s Ref: Marion Fergusson 01563 576769
The above Planning Permission in Principle application should be refused for the following reasons
1. The proposal fails to accord with Policy OP1 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that:
(i) it fails to demonstrate compliance with the provisions and principles of the LDP vision and spatial strategy, all relevant LDP policies and associated supplementary guidance and non-statutory guidance, in particular with reference to (a) the proposed indicative capacity for the site and whether this can be accommodated on site without detriment; and (b) the public and private open space provision, in terms of where this is located and how easily utilised this might be; (v) provisions of SPP, the Scottish Government’s policy statement Designing Streets, and the Council’s Design Guidance;
(vi) the Masterplan as submitted fails to assess the potential effects on the listed buildings within the site.
(ix) the proposal overall fails to protect and enhance natural and built heritage designations and link to and integrate with green infrastructure where possible; and
(xi) fails to meet with the requirement of all statutory service providers, including Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Ayrshire Roads Alliance, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Environment Scotland and the Coal Authority.
2. The proposal fails to accord with Policy OP2 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that it can deliver the required mitigation needed in terms of the effects of the proposal on:
Trees; Soils; Watercourses; Habitats; Wildlife; Flooding; and Listed buildings all of which may lead to significant detrimental effects that may be irreversible.
3. The proposal fails to accord with Policy RES1 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that 550 units can be accommodated on this site and delivered in line with the principles of good place-making and the Council’s Design Guidance, or that the proposal meets with all relevant LDP policies; in terms of public and private open space.
4. The proposal fails to accord with Policy RES3 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the affordable units required to be accommodated on this site are sufficient in number.
5. The proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV1 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that it enhances the quality of East Ayrshire’s environment and contribute to the character of local communities, via the retention and preservation of all listed buildings and their respective settings, and the proposal does not fully demonstrate the impact on the listed buildings involved.
6. The proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV4 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that a design led approach to delivering green infrastructure has been an integral part of the design of development; neither does it enhance and existing green infrastructure or create new green infrastructure assets as appropriate. Neither does the application demonstrate via the indicative masterplan layout that the proposal demonstrates the importance of nature conservation in the indicative masterplan, to the potential detriment of loss of trees, habitat and overall general biodiversity of the site, particularly in regard to protected species that may be on site.
7. The proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV6 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that it fails to demonstrate how any adverse impacts on this locally important area can be avoided or mitigated; and the design of the development (which has the potential to impact on protected species) does not conclusively demonstrate that potential impacts have been fully considered.
8. The proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV9 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that it fails to contribute to the amenity, nature conservation and landscape value of the area, through the retention of individual trees, hedgerows and woodlands, furthermore that the proposal will lead to the direct felling of ancient semi-natural woodlands and trees protected by Preservation Order.
9. The proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV11 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that it fails to promote flood avoidance in the first instance in that the Flood Risk Assessment methodology is flawed; neither does the proposal take into account the specific characteristics of the site; nor are satisfactory flood protection measures (such as establishment of freeboard, finished floor levels, and flood routes) proven to ensure the site is free from the risk, of flooding.
10. The proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV12 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that:-
(i) the proposal fails to improve the water bodies through the site by maintaining them as wildlife corridors where biodiversity can be improve; the development may have an adverse impact on the water environment in terms of pollution levels and the ecological value of water habitats; also that the development actively pursues morphological changes to water bodies via engineering activities in the form of culverts or changes to the banks or bed of watercourses; and
(ii) it fails to demonstrate that noise impacts on surrounding properties are either avoided or adequately mitigated for.
11. The proposal fails to accord with Policy T1 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal does not meet with all the requisite standards of the Ayrshire Roads Alliance in respect of the Transport Assessment as submitted.
12. The proposal fails to accord with Policy INF4 of the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan 2017, in that the proposal does not link to existing open spaces/green infrastructure and create new green infrastructure assets as appropriate.
13. The proposal fails to accord with The Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland), in that it does not take full account of species protection requirements of the Habitats Directive in Scotland, to the potential irreversible harm of European Protected Species.