Application for Review Change of Use
Item 4a
!"# $ %$ &
""' ' (% ' ) ' ! ( (! * + ("$
&) + ' !" ""' + !
,-./- -0 1
+ ' * + '+ ) + ! )$2 )3 '""' - !( 3 ) + ! %$2 * + '+) ' '" )( ""' $
) ""' 456 ''7' ! ' (+ +""'' ' 3 ""' 8 ""'
2
<2 ' 0 !")9,
+$- !( : ! ; -! - !( 7 ( 5
<' -!5 ; -!
) . -!5 ; - !(
= 2 ' " - !( 5 > 6 85
- !(
( < (- !( 390)5
' - !( 0 )5
?@;- 2 ' 5
! 5 !#!"$' $ &
/ ""'% 9' " )45
/% , 90 " )
2 ""'
, : ! ; -! - !( 7 ( 5
< < , ; -!
A -!5 ; - !(
0!"( 0 ? . -!5 6 85
; '0 0 !")9,
C )! " - !( 5 390)5
' - !( 0 )5
? < (- !( 2 ' 5
- !(
! 5
2 ) 0 '
" + 6' " ' 3 %(8
;.- B.. :/--
A@?.?,=,C
;.- / .C
@
A
390)9! ?.?,=
? >;2 2 0
2 +)9 ' ( ' +
> AA -
2 " % ' " +) " " 3') %3 $ ' " ( ! % ""' + !7 !3 ! +" )5 6< A' ' 8
0-? ,G -C H -/,-,2G;./0,G ,,<C= ../-?,G
=)" +""' ) (! " )45
""' + "" ! 6' ""' ( ' ""' 3 &! 8$ ""' + "" ! " '"$ ""' $ ""' + "" % +! "'+' $
= ) %3 45
+ - '$ ? +" ! 30 !" $ - ' '3" ' (" 63 ! + % ) 8D! + $
: ! + 73)) & %3 +" )E ' 6 + !&' 8$: ! ! ! ) ' * (& '' !) %3$/+' ) '(" % " ' !F "" C ' ! E ' 56< A' ' 8
- ) &) %+ "" ) ) ! +"" 7 ) " ' ++ ! ) 3' 1!& & '' $
: 3% )3! 3'3 (+ " )!') ""' 6 ! " ) +" + ! 87 ) '! 3! ' %( (+ ! ( (+ ! ' * ' + '" ' ' ! ' $
? + %3C ' ! 1A
%) )! 3'3 (+ "" ++' ! : - C ! ) ""' 3 !45
/+) 7) "( ( 373)) 3! 73)3 3"" ++' (+ ) ""' 3 !3)) ' (' ) %356< A' ' 8
2 " % + "" ' ! 7! %'3') 3 (!3) ' + %3 ) "" +) %3$: '' ' ! ' ') " ' 56< A' ' 8
? + %3C ' ! 1A
2 " %""' + ' $% ) ()) " 9 A 9G. )+ ) " % ""' $
=3 ""' (! " )45 A9@9
=3 ' ()" )45 9 9
. '%3; )3' " ' ( !) %3!))! %3 " ' * + + ! " (! (! ! %3$ + ! !)( * () ' !( +" ' 7 ' 3 (! I + ! 9 "'3' (J' + %3' $
0 %3' ' ' 7) " 7( %3 + %+ ! " %()) + " )73 )+ " ' 4 !"73 (! 7 7 "' $5 : -
/%. '%3; )"" ' ) ""' ' "' 7) "
0 (' ) + ! " ('45 : - / " (+ ('' +)3 ( )45 : -
2 ' !"+ 3''& !& ) %" %' )+ ! "" +) ""$ (! + ! !) ) ""(!%$
%) " %! +""'4$5 : - %) " % + ' !( +""' 3' (J' + : - %345
/+) 7' (+ +""'7%) " % +) ! : - -9 '3 ) ' ' " ' * ' ' 3 %3 ( ) ""'45 %) " % ! ) + * %3()3 : - " ' 6 ' !( +" ' 8) 3 %3 (' '45
- : ! 7+ 73)) & %3 ) ""' $: !! ! ) ' * (& '' !) %3$: !) %+ "" ) ) ! + %3 $/ + ) (!3) ' + %37' )+ ! %') ) 3 . '%3; ) ' " +) %3$ 2 '' ") + ' ! 7! %'3') ) : - 6$$" C 3 83' 3 (J' + %35
- = %3 + ""' $$ 3 +"" ! ! +' 7% ! % + "' 3 ""' + "" % +! "'+' 7 % ( " % ""' + ' !( 7"" %" ' '6+)8+ ! ' $
/9=""'9' +) ""' + %3 $
C' -! < <')
C' C 99
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE AND EXTENSION OF PUBLIC HOUSE TO FORM DWELLING HOUSE, BLANE VALLEY INN, 54 GLASGOW ROAD, BLANEFIELD, G63 9BP (LPA REFERENCE 20/00252/FUL)
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
Submitted on behalf of Mr Ross and Mrs Alexandra Campbell by REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE AND EXTENSION OF PUBLIC HOUSE TO FORM DWELLING HOUSE, BLANE VALLEY INN 54 GLASGOW ROAD BLANEFIELD G63 9BP (LPA REFERENCE 20/00252/FUL)
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
1. Site Description:
1.1 The site the subject of this review is the former Blane Valley Inn, which ceased trading in February 2020.
1.2 The former Inn is a two-storey detached early/mid Victorian building located on the north side of Glasgow Road, Blanefield. It has a symmetrical frontage featuring a double gable, with projecting canted bay ground floor windows, a timber canopy above, with decorative corbels, and a central entrance door. The external walls are rendered and finished in white, which contrasts with a dark grey paint finish to the window casements, mullions, door and canopy.
1.3 The building is not a listed building, and the review site is not within a conservation area.
2 Relevant Planning History:
2.1 Prior to the submission of the review application the owner of the Blane Valley Inn applied for planning permission for the siting of 3 no ‘tourism pods’ with the grounds at the rear of the premises (LPA reference 19/00950/FUL). This application was submitted in an attempt to secure the financial viability of the business, and as an alternative to having to consider closure. This application was nevertheless refused for the following reason:
“The proposed pods would result in a loss of residential amenity and would reduce the available parking provision for the Blane Valley Inn and increase the risk of indiscriminate parking on the public road during busy times contrary to Primary Policy 1, Primary Policy 15 (b) and Policy 15.1 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018 and to Draft SG Transport and Access (July, 2019).”
3. The Review Application:
3.1 The review application was submitted on 15 April 2020. It was refused on 18 June 2020 for the following reasons:
Page | 1 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 1 The proposed change of use is likely to diminish the range of community facilities on offer in the village and will have a significant impact on the vitality and viability of the village much to the detriment of the local community, contrary to the Spatial Strategy and Primary Policy 3 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018.
2 The proposed rear extension by virtue of its scale, flat roof and external finishes would have a negative impact on the character and integrity of the host building and is contrary to Policies 1.1 and 2.12 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018 and paragraphs 2.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions.
3. Relevant Development Plan Policies:
3.2 Section 25 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that “where in making any determination under the planning act regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”
3.3 The Development Plan relevant to the current planning application comprises the:
x Stirling Council Local Development Plan (2018).
3.4 The following policy of the Local Development Plan were referred to in the above reasons for refusal:
Primary Policy 3 (Provision of Infrastructure), which states:
(a) Should no further infrastructure be provided, there will be significant infrastructure deficiencies as a result of the scale and location of development within the Plan. Management and enhancement of existing infrastructure, and reducing the demands for new infrastructure will be the preferred approach in supporting the implementation of the Spatial Strategy. (b) Land necessary for the provision of identified and anticipated infrastructure (i.e. for enhancements to the transport network as identified in National, Regional and Local Transport Strategies, and through the LDP DPMTAG Transport Appraisal, new or expanded schools, new and improved healthcare facilities and recycling Bring Sites), will be safeguarded where appropriate as shown in the Settlement Statements.
Page | 2 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant (c) Shared use of facilities in the provision of educational, social, recreational, health and wider community infrastructure will be supported. The loss of services through changes of use/demolition, where they serve an important community and/or employment function (e.g. post offices, pharmacies), will also be resisted. (d) Continuing enhancement of digital communications infrastructure will be encouraged in accordance with the principles set out in SPP. In particular, developers will be required, in consultation with service providers, to install the necessary infrastructure to enable fibrebased high-speed broadband in new homes and business premises. (e) Where appropriate, transport infrastructure corridors, sustainable drainage elements, open space and Green Corridor provision etc., should be integrated with the Green Network (see Policy 1.3 and SG: Green Networks and Open Space).
Policy 1.1 (Site Planning) which states that all new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, are required to contribute, in a positive manner, to quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. All proposals are therefore expected to meet the following criteria (where relevant):
(a) The siting, layout and density of new development should; contribute towards or create a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings; respect, complement and connect with its surroundings; be safely accessed; and create a sense of identity within the development. (b) All new development should consider and respect site topography, and any surrounding important landmarks (built or natural), views or skylines. (c) The design should be appropriate to both any building to which it relates, and the wider surroundings in terms of appearance, position, height, scale, massing, and should use materials, finishes and colours which complement those prevalent. (d) In urban settings in particular, buildings should be positioned so as to respect an existing building line or establish one where none exists. Thereafter, access, uses and orientation of principal elevations should reinforce the street or areas of open space. (e) All buildings, streets and open spaces should be considered and designed in a manner so as to create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people, which are easily navigable, particularly on foot, bicycle and public transport. Any core path, established rights of way, and other important access routes should be protected and retained. (f) It should be demonstrated that buildings and spaces have been
Page | 3 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant designed with future adaptability in mind wherever possible and appropriate. (g) Existing buildings, structures and natural features that contribute to local townscape and biodiversity should be retained and sensitively integrated into proposals. (h) Consider and plan for how the development will be serviced including the potential for heat networks and ensuring that adequate space is given to facilitating recycling and the storage of waste bins.
Policy 2.12 (Residential Alterations and Extensions), which states that the alteration and/or extension of residential properties will be supported provided that all the relevant criteria are satisfied:
(a) The proposal is of a scale, size, massing and design that is subordinate and sympathetic to them building to be extended and the wider townscape and uses materials appropriate to its context. (b) The proposal does not result in an over-development of the plot, with sufficient space remaining for garden ground, parking, and bin storage, which is comparable to the amenity afforded to surrounding residential properties in this regard. (c) The proposal does not result in a material detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties in terms of privacy, noise or loss of daylight.
4. Grounds for Review:
4.1 As noted above, Section 25 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that “where in making any determination under the planning act regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Having regard to this it is considered that the key issues to be addressed by the Local Review Body are:
The principle of the proposed change of use
4.2 The former Blane Valley Inn is no longer economically viable, and it has not been for many years. The current owners of the business purchased it January 2018, from Greene King. The business at that time was trading so poorly that no detailed financial accounts could be provided. The new owners, who have a long established ‘track record’ in the hospitality trade, genuinely believed that there was an opportunity to ‘turn the business around’.
Page | 4 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 4.3 One critical element of the plan for the long-term viability of the business was to provide guest accommodation at the premises, in the shape of 3 short-term letting ‘pods’ on the land to the rear of the main building. A first application was submitted for this in September 2019 (LPA reference 19/00725/FUL). This was ultimately withdrawn (for purely technical reasons), and a further application for the same development was submitted in December 2019 (19/00950/FUL).
4.4 The Case Officer dealing with the application was initially very supportive of the application proposal, both verbally and in written communication. An e-mail received on 24 January 2020 stated:
“Sorry, I can see that you have sent a few emails – I’ve been out of the office for the last few days and have just logged on but I will be writing this one up to recommend approval and will email David to ask if he will sign it off”.
4.5 Notwithstanding this initial support for the proposal, the application was then refused for the reason set out in paragraph 2.1 above. The Case Officer’s report contained the following:
“The applicant has advised that the Blane Valley Inn has been struggling for some time due to the costs associated with essential maintenance and repair work to the building. It was hoped that the current application (proposed pods) if approved, would help support the viability and retention of the public house which has been operating in excess of 150 years. However, it is argued that rather than supporting the viability of the pub, the proposed use of the site for tourism pods could in fact limit the operational flexibility of the pub, prevent the ancillary space being used by the local community as a beer garden and thus could make the pub less attractive to customers. The proposed use could also threaten the long term viability of a pub since increased complaints from residents regarding noise, litter and loss of residential amenity is more likely”.
4.6 The applicant was particularly disappointed by this assessment given his long and successful involvement in the hospitality trade. He was of the opinion that it demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the somewhat precarious nature of operating a village inn. His feeling was “… why would I have submitted an application that would threaten the viability of my business, and in doing so make it less attractive to customers?”.
Page | 5 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 4.7 Shortly after the refusal of planning permission was issued, in February 2020 (i.e. before the commencement of the ‘lockdown’), the owner made the financial decision to close the Blane Valley Inn permanently.
4.8 In order to support the financial position of the business, submitted with this application for review, is a letter dated 11 March 2020, from Paterson and Co, Business Advisers (Document 1). This states:
“I have now reviewed the financial position of Blane Valley for the year ended 31 October 2019 and the 3 months ended 31 January 2020 and consider that the business is not viable and that you should dispose of it in the best possible manner to recoup some of your losses.”
4.9 In this context the certified business accounts for the year ending 31 October 2019 show a loss of almost £20,000. This loss did not include any reimbursement for the owner’s time spent running the business. Accounts for the 3-month period to 31 January 2020 show a further loss of £12,000. It is clear from these figures that even when the Inn might have re-opened following the ‘lockdown’, with the additional social distancing measures that would have to be put in place, it would simply not be possible for it to be brought into profit.
4.10 A further letter dated 2 July 2020, from French Duncan LLP (Document 2) states:
“French Duncan LLP are the appointed tax agents and accountants for Cruachan Developments Ltd, the company which owns the above noted property. We can confirm that the company purchased Blane Valley Inn in January 2018 and trading commenced in March 2018. Despite the best efforts of the directors, it became apparent that this section of the business was running at a loss and it was not financially viable to continue these operations. The directors took the difficult decision to cease trading in early February 2020.”
4.11 With regard to marketing the Blane Valley Inn, the owners have for the past 12 months used commercial specialists Bruce and Company to undertake this. Whilst there have been a number of potentially interested parties, no formal purchase offers have been made. The only offer that has been made was that from the current applicants, Mr and Mrs Campbell. This has been confirmed by e-mail (Document 3).
4.12 Mr and Mrs Campbell submitted their application (the review
Page | 6 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant application) for the “change of use and extension of public house to form dwelling house” in April 2020. The Case Officer dealing with the application was initially (as she had been with the application for the 3 short-term letting ‘pods’) very supportive of the proposed change of use. In an e-mail dated 12 May 2020 she said:
“The principle of change of use to a house is of course acceptable. I won’t let this one drag on though – it’s a priority and it’s still in date (not expired)”.
4.13 Again, notwithstanding this initial support, the review application was refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 3.1 above.
4.14 In the first of these Officers have said that they believe that the proposed change of use would have a significant impact on the vitality and viability of the village, to the detriment of the local community. This conclusion however avoids the harsh reality of the financial situation; the submitted information clearly demonstrates that the business is sadly no longer economically viable. Even without the current COVID-19 situation projected losses during the current financial year could be estimated to be in the region of £48,000 (based on a recorded loss of £12,000 during the first quarter of the financial year).
4.15 The refusal of planning permission for the change of use of the Blane Valley Inn to a dwelling will not ensure its viability. It is extremely unlikely given the current situation that there will be any realistic offers for the business, as a ‘going concern’. The building will therefore remain empty and unused for the foreseeable future.
4.16 In addition to the above, it is also relevant to note that there is an alternative licenced premises in Strathblane/Blanefield, the Kirkhouse Inn. Whilst a hotel, this also contains a public bar and a restaurant. The closure of the Blane Valley Inn therefore does not mean that no similar community facility now exists.
The design of the proposed rear extension
4.17 The second reason for refusal relates to the design of the rear extension, which Officers consider by virtue of its scale, flat roof and external finishes would have a negative impact on the character and integrity of the host building.
4.18 The reason for refusal makes reference to Policy 2.12 of the Local development Plan, which relates to residential alterations and extensions.
Page | 7 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant Whilst the review application is for the change of use of the former Inn to a dwelling, given that permission for this has been refused, the property is not a dwelling. The relevance of this policy (and also Supplementary Guidance SG12 - Residential Alterations and Extensions) is therefore questionable.
4.19 Policy 1.1 (Site Planning) is however relevant. This states that all new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, are required to contribute, in a positive manner, to quality of the surrounding built and natural environment, and that the design of all proposals should be appropriate to both the building to which it relates, and the wider surroundings in terms of appearance, position, height, scale, massing, and should use materials, finishes and colours which complement those prevalent.
4.20 The proposed extension is entirely to the rear of the main building and will replace a range of existing outbuildings (which will be demolished). These are an ‘eyesore’ and their demolition will be of benefit. The main (host) building is not a listed building, and it is not located within a conservation area. A more flexible approach to the design of extensions should therefore be able to be taken, and a more ‘contemporary’ design solution should not automatically be presumed against if that is what the applicant desires.
4.21 For practical reasons, in this particular instance, a more ‘traditional’ pitched roof arrangement would interfere with the first-floor windows of the main building, and so has been discounted. The proposed extension therefore has a flat roof. It will be finished externally with cedar cladding. Windows and doors would be grey aluminium framed double-glazed units, and gutters/rainwater pipes/soffits/fascias etc. would be black uPVC.
4.22 Given the location of the proposed extension to the rear of the building it will be barely noticeable from any public vantage point. Furthermore, it is considered that the design and choice of external materials are “complementary” to those of the main building. To “complement” means to “complete or enhance by providing something additional”, it does not mean to be identical to. On this basis it is not considered that the application proposal conflicts with the requirements of Policy 1.1 to the extent that planning permission should have been refused.
5. Conclusions:
5.1 In conclusion the submitted information confirms beyond any doubt that
Page | 8 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant the former Blane Valley Inn is no longer economically viable, and that it has not been for many years. Despite active marketing for the last 12 months the only offer to purchase the property that has been made has been by the current applicant. Refusing planning permission for the change of use of the building to a dwelling will not mean that the Inn will re-open. All that will happen is that it will remain empty for the foreseeable future.
5.2 With respect to the design of the proposed rear extension it is considered that this is both an appropriate solution to the requirements of the applicant, taking into account the constraints of the site, and that the choice of external materials are “complementary” to the main building. The proposed extension will result in the removal of a number of existing outbuildings and as it would be entirely to the rear of the building, which is neither listed or within a conservation area, there is not considered to be any conflict with policy in this regard.
5.3 For the above reasons it is hoped that the Council’s Local Review Body will grant planning permission for the change of use and extension of the former Blane Valley Inn, to form a dwelling house. On this basis the now vacant premises will be able to be put to a new and beneficial use.
Page | 9 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant Decision Notice abc
Mrs A Campbell APPLICATION NUMBER per Clark Design Architecture Strathleven House 20/00252/FUL Levenside Road DECISION LEVEL Dumbarton G82 3PD Delegated
Refusal of Planning Permission
Stirling Council refuses Planning Permission for the proposals described below, on the application form and on the accompanying plans.
Description of the proposed development
Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house
Location of the proposed development
Blane Valley Inn 54 Glasgow Road Blanefield G63 9BP
The Council’s reasons for refusal are:-
1 The proposed change of use is likely to diminish the range of community facilities on offer in the village and will have a significant impact on the vitality and viability of the village much to the detriment of the local community, contrary to the Spatial Strategy and Primary Policy 3 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018.
2 The proposed rear extension by virtue of its scale, flat roof and external finishes would have a negative impact on the character and integrity of the host building and is contrary to Policies 1.1 and 2.12 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018 and paragraphs 2.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions.
Service Manager Date 18 June 2020 Planning & Building Standards
Schedule of Plans Refused - Plans can be viewed online at www.stirling.gov.uk/onlineplanning
Stirling Council Name Ref on Plan Status Plan No. 01 Location Plan 2020/899/L1 Decision 03 Site Plan 2020/899/03 Decision 04 Floor Plans 2020/899/04 Decision 05 General 2020/899/03 Decision
Stirling Council, Planning, Teith House, Kerse Road, Stirling FK7 7QA. Tel: (01786) 233660 Reason for Decision
The proposed change of use is likely to diminish the range of community facilities on offer in the village much to the detriment of the local community and no evidence has been submitted in support of the application to justify change of use. The proposed rear extension by virtue of its scale, flat roof and external finishes would have a negative impact on the character and integrity of the host building. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered contrary to Primary Policy 3, the Spatial Strategy and Policies 1.1 and 2.12 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018. The proposal also conflicts with paragraphs 2.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions.
This Decision Notice is issued under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. It should be read, together with the accompanying plans; if any details differ, then the Decision Notice takes priority.
This Decision Notice neither gives nor implies a decision on a Building Warrant or under any other legislation.
Your Rights of Appeal
If you disagree with the Council’s decision on your application, or with one or more of the conditions attached to the decision, you have the right to make an appeal within 3 months of the date of the decision notice.
If your application was determined under delegated powers you can apply for a Review by the Council’s Local Review Body (LRB) under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
If your application was determined by way of the Council’s weekly Planning Schedule or heard at Panel, then you can appeal that decision to the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.
In either event, you can apply online on the Government’s ePlanning Scotland website at www.eplanning.scot. You can also download the Notice of Review Form here and this should be sent to Head of Legal Services, Stirling Council, Old Viewforth, Stirling, FK8 2ET. Report of Handling
Application determined under Delegated Powers. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation can be viewed at https://www.stirling.gov.uk/council-democracy/politicians-elections-democracy/council-constitution- standing-orders/
REFERENCE NO 20/00252/FUL
PROPOSAL Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house
SITE ADDRESS Blane Valley Inn, 54 Glasgow Road, Blanefield, G63 9BP,
RECOMMENDATION Refuse
AGREED BY Appointed Officer
DATE 18 June 2020
Reason for Report
This report fulfils the requirements of Regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013. The application has been determined in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation as well as the Procedures for the Handling of Planning Applications.
Development Plan Considerations:
The decision has been made with consideration to the following policies and guidance in the Stirling Local Development Plan:-
Policy 1.1: Site Planning
Policy 2.12: Residential Alterations and Extensions
Primary Policy 3: Provision of Infrastructure
Other Material Considerations
Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions
Extension to a house should be: sympathetic in scale, positioning and detail to the original building; considerably smaller than the original house and; should be designed to look like as if it is an integral part. Extensions to vernacular-style buildings should not result in the loss of the character of the original building (paragraph 2.1). They should generally have pitched roofs at the same pitch as the original with a minimum slope of 30 (unless the original is shallower). Flat roofed extensions are not generally acceptable and will only considered in certain instances, where for example, a pitched roof cannot be accommodated (paragraph 5.2). Materials must be chosen with care to avoid destroying the integrity of the original building and should be the same or compatible and be sympathetic to the character of the original and neighbouring buildings (paragraph 5.3). Whilst contrasting materials can be successful, the introduction of new materials not used in your building or neighbouring buildings is generally discouraged as they may make your extension look like an 'add-on' rather than an integral part of the original (paragraph 5.4).
The Stirling Plan 2018 The Guiding Principles are listed on page 6 of The Stirling Plan and include, amongst other principles: placing communities and people at the heart of everything the Council does; improving participation, engagement and co-production with communities to identify local priorities and deliver solutions and; empowering communities by providing opportunities to participate in decision making.
Summary of Representations
The Planning Authority has received 11 objections. The grounds of objections are: a) Change of use to a house is irreversible and is not in the interests of the community. b) The Blane Valley Inn is a traditional pub and very different to the Kirkhouse Inn, which is a larger hotel. There is a need for both facilities which complement one another. c) The Blane Valley Inn offers employment to local people, especially younger people allowing them to remain within the village for work. d) With a better business model, the pub could once again thrive as it has previously - a family pub with beer garden and family area would be supported by locals and the travelling community, picking up trade from the vast numbers of passing traffic and is ideally placed on a main through route from Callander, Aberfoyle and Loch Lommond. e) The Blane Valley Inn should be marketed as a public house before any agreement is sought to change its use. f) Its locality ensures that the facilities are not all weighted towards one end of the village (its position and parking encourages use of the small shop and cafe opposite, which together provide a clear village centre). It supports the 'business/village hub'. g) It is important for the village to have a pub as it brings together a variety of villagers, walkers, cyclists etc., and is especially important since after-hours bus timetables have been reduced, making it difficult for villagers to go further afield for leisure. h) There is a recognised need for new housing in the village, which has 'highly pressured status',but the need is not for a large single dwelling. According to the Spatial Strategy, the need is for affordable flats and houses. The proposal will also result in the loss of a 2/3-bedroom first floor flat as well pub itself. i) Proposed change of use, as well as the style of house proposed, goes against all the principles highlighted in Primary Policy 3. j) The pub frontage provides the whole of the parking for south-bound passing trade for the shops. The convenience store relies on "in-and-out" passing trade that will not stop if there is the parking is lost to housing. k) Loss of the Blane Valley Inn as a pub will mean loss of part of the character and identity of the village. The pub has been a valuable asset to the village and all attempts should be made to make it a successful public house. l) The proposal will adversely impact the community and the open streetscape.
Summary of Consultation Responses
Roads Development Control: A dwelling house of this scale (4/5 beds) should provide 3 car parking spaces. A turning area should be provided as part of the driveway in order that vehicles can exit the site in a forward gear. A footway over the site frontage to connect the existing provision either side would be required.
Previous History
19/00950/FUL - Partial change of use of land for siting 3No static caravans (tourism pods) - refused
C:\USERS\MCFARL~1\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\UFM56.RTF on grounds of amenity.
Officer Assessment
Proposal The application seeks a change of use from public house (Sui Generis) to a five bedroom single dwelling house (Class 9), together with demolition of outbuildings, erection of a flat roof rear extension with velux windows, installation of five velux windows to the original roof, hardstanding, parking and double gated entrance to the front of the property.
Site Description The application site relates to the Blane Valley Inn public house, a two storey detached early/mid Victorian building located on the north side of Glasgow Road, opposite a small terrace of shops, in the centre of Blanefield village, which straddles the A81 tourist route to The Trossachs.
The building has an open frontage and sufficient forecourt parking for approximately 8 vehicles and has an outbuilding to the rear. The building is not a statutory or locally listed building but its traditional style and form make a significant contribution to the streetscene and more generally, to visual amenity. The building forms a symmetrical composition featuring a double gable frontage with projecting canted bay ground floor windows, timber canopy above with decorative corbels and central entrance with timber panelled door and fanlight above. External walls are rendered and finished in white, which contrasts well with the dark grey paint finish timber window casements, mullions, door and canopy.
Assessment Relevant Development Policies:
Policy 1.1: Site Planning
All new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, are required to contribute, in a positive manner, to quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. All proposals are therefore expected to meet the following criteria (where relevant): a) The siting, layout and density of new development should; respect, complement and connect with its surroundings; and create a sense of identity within the development.
(c) The design should be appropriate to both any building to which it relates, and the wider surroundings in terms of appearance, position, height, scale, massing, and should use materials, finishes and colours which complement those prevalent.
Policy 2.12: Residential Alterations and Extensions
The alteration and/or extension of residential properties will be supported provided that all the relevant criteria are satisfied:
(a) The proposal is of a scale, size, massing and design that is subordinate and sympathetic to them building to be extended and the wider townscape, and uses materials appropriate to its context.
(b) The proposal does not result in an over-development of the plot, with sufficient space remaining for garden ground, parking, and bin storage, which is comparable to the amenity afforded to surrounding residential properties in this regard.
(c) The proposal does not result in a material detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties in terms of privacy, noise or loss of daylight.
Primary Policy 3: Provision of Infrastructure
(c) Shared use of facilities in the provision of educational, social, recreational, health and wider community infrastructure will be supported. The loss of services through changes of use/demolition, where they serve an important community and/or employment function (e.g. post offices, pharmacies), will also be resisted.
Spatial Strategy
C:\USERS\MCFARL~1\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\UFM56.RTF The Spatial Strategy of the Local Development Plan identifies the development approach for each of the villages in the Stirling area over the next 20 years. The Spatial Strategy is detailed Table 1 of the Development Plan. Table 1 advises that that a sustainable expansion approach will be adopted for the conjoined villages of Strathblane and Blanefield, which includes, inter alia, protection of the village centres in order to sustain local services and facilities.
Officer Assessment
Change of Use
It is understood that the Blane Valley Inn has been operating as a public house for some 150 years but in recent times has struggled financially due to difficult trading conditions. A change of use is therefore sought from a public house to a five bedroom residential dwelling.
Primary Policy 3 Provision of Infrastructure (PP3) seeks to resist loss of services through change of use where these services serve an important community and/or employment function. The policy cites two examples (post offices and pharmacies) of typical services that provide an important community and/or employment function. A fair reading of the policy, interpreted in the context of the Spatial Strategy for the conjoined villages of Strathblane and Blanefield, suggests that services other than post offices and pharmacies can equally provide an important community and/or employment function. The examples cited in PP3 are not therefore intended to provide an exhaustive list of community services that require to be protected. Often, the significance of the community service in question, and weight given to its protection by the Planning Authority, will depend both on the importance placed on the service by the community and on any response received from the community in respect to its loss during a formal consultation process. This approach is in line with the Guiding Principles of The Stirling Plan 2018.
The potential loss of any village service or community facility is a source of concern, particularly where a community has raised objection to its loss. In the particular case, the Planning Authority has received a significant number of objections to the proposed change of use of the Blane Valley Inn, including an objection from Strathblane Community Council which acts to represent the views of the wider community. The objections, which are a material consideration in the determination of this application, highlight the importance and significance of the Blane Valley Inn to the community.
It is recognised that the village has a second community facility, the Kirkhouse Inn, situated further east of the Blane Valley Inn, off the Glasgow Road. This facility provides a 15 bedroom hotel with bar and restaurant and is more formal in nature, appealing largely to travellers and tourists. There is a patent distinction therefore between the Kirkhouse Inn and the Blane Valley Inn since each facility offers different services that appeal to different user groups. Strategically, the hotel is also located closer to the edge of the village whereas the Blane Valley Inn is centrally located in the hub of the village close to local shops/cafes. Both the Kirkhouse Inn and the Blane Valley Inn contribute to the range of facilities on offer in the village and are considered equally necessary to aid rural economic activity and help sustain the vitality and viability of the village.
Village communities are reliant on travelling greater distances to meet their everyday needs. The loss of local rural community services and facilities runs counter to the rural viability and sustainability policy objectives outlined in PP3 and the Spatial Strategy. Loss of the Blane Valley Inn to a residential dwelling could seriously diminish the range of facilities on offer in the village. Therefore, where change of use to a community facility is proposed and significant objection has been received from the community, the Planning Authority will require the Applicant to demonstrate that the community facility is no longer commercially viable and that genuine and adequate attempts to market the premises as a public house over a reasonable period (e.g. over the course of a period of 12 months) have failed. The Applicant has not provided any evidence to justify why the Blane Valley Inn is not capable of being retained as a public house and no case has been presented for the proposed change of use. In the absence of evidence to justify the change of use, this element of the proposal is considered contrary to PP3 and the Spatial Strategy.
Design
The application proposes an extensive flat roof full width rear extension which projects approximately 10m beyond the rear elevation of the premises. Policy 2.12 (a) and SG12 (paragraph 2.1) require that alterations and extensions to residential properties (the Applicant is proposing to convert the building to a residential dwelling) should be of a scale that is subordinate and sympathetic to the building which to be extended and should be designed to look integral to the host building. The depth of the proposed extension (10m) is deeper than the floor plan of the host building and the width of the
C:\USERS\MCFARL~1\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\UFM56.RTF extension covers the full width of ground floor rear elevation, which will result in much of the original fabric of the building. The proposed extension cannot be described as sympathetic or subordinate in character to the host building and rather than appearing integral to the host building, the extension appears at odds with its traditional vernacular style and will have a negative impact on its character and appearance. Similarly, the external finishes of the proposed extension (cedar cladding) are not in keeping with the traditional rural village context where buildings are generally finished in stone or roughcast, and the extent to they are used in the design results in the appearance of a temporary makeshift structure. For the above reasons, the proposed extension fails the third test set out in Policy 1.1 (c) and the first test set out in Policy 2.12 (a). The proposal also fails to take account of guidance set out in paragraphs 2.1, 5.3 and 5.4 of SG12 and the incorporation of an uncharacteristic flat roof is strongly discouraged by SG12 (paragraph 5.2).
The proposed extension will not result in overdevelopment of the plot and provides sufficient parking with sufficient space remaining for garden ground and bin storage. The proposal therefore complies with the second test set out in Policy 2.12 (b). The proposed extension is single storey in height and will not lead to overshadowing of neighbouring properties. Windows are orientated north towards the rear garden and west towards the flank elevation of the neighbouring property to the west and will not lead to overlooking of neighbouring gardens. The proposal will not result in a material detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and complies with the third test set out in Policy 2.12 (c).
Insufficient details have been provided in respect of the boundary treatment proposed (including gates and walled enclosures). This component of the proposal has not therefore been assessed.
Conclusion The proposed change of use is likely to diminish the range of community facilities on offer in the village much to the detriment of the local community and no evidence has been submitted in support of the application to justify change of use. The proposed rear extension by virtue of its scale, flat roof and external finishes would have a negative impact on the character and integrity of the host building. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered contrary to Primary Policy 3, the Spatial Strategy and Policies 1.1 and 2.12 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018. The proposal also conflicts with paragraphs 2.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions.
Summary of Main Issues Raised In Respect of:
Any Environmental Statement submitted. Any assessment under Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 carried out. Any Design Statement or Design and Access Statement submitted. Any report on impact or potential impact of the proposed development (e.g. retail, transport, noise or risk of flooding) submitted.
Not Applicable.
Section 75 Obligations
In assessing and reporting on a planning application the Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation entered into under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of planning permission for the proposed development
None.
Scottish Ministers Directions
In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017.
C:\USERS\MCFARL~1\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\UFM56.RTF None.
Local Application
This application is classified as a 'local application' and as such is processed under delegated powers, unless one of the below criteria is met
- Ward member referral within 25 days of validation or marker set within 25 days and member referral following recommendation - NO - Recommendation to approve where there are five or more objections - NO - Council financial interest and proposal contrary to Development Plan - NO - The application is made by a member of the Planning Authority - NO - Recommendation to approve where the proposal is a significant departure from the Local Development Plan - NO - The application requires to be notified to Scottish Ministers - NO
Schedule of Plans Determined
Stirling Council Name Ref on Plan Status Plan No. 01 Location Plan 2020/899/L1 Decision 03 Site Plan 2020/899/03 Decision 04 Floor Plans 2020/899/04 Decision 05 General 2020/899/03 Decision
Equalities Impact Assessment
This application was assessed in terms of equality and human rights. Any impact has been identified in the Consideration/Assessment section of this report.
C:\USERS\MCFARL~1\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\UFM56.RTF PATERSON & CO
Business Advisers
ͳͳ ʹͲʹͲ
ǡ
͵ͳ ʹͲͳͻ͵͵ͳ ʹͲʹͲ
Iain A Paterson LL.B. C.A. CTA 46 Lyle Road, Greenock PA16 7QT Principal email: [email protected] tel: 01475 637940 mob: 07734386211 The people for you.
133 FINNIESTON STREET GLASGOW G3 8HB
T: 0141 221 2984 F: 0141 221 2980 [email protected] www.frenchduncan.co.uk
2 July 2020
Our Ref: JC/AE/CR0156
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL To Whom it may Concern
BY EMAIL ONLY
Dear Sirs
Blane Valley Inn
French Duncan LLP are the appointed tax agents and accountants for Cruachan Developments Ltd, the company which owns the above noted property. We can confirm that the company purchased Blane Valley Inn in January 2018 and trading commenced in March 2018. Despite the best efforts of the directors, it became apparent that this section of the business was running at a loss and it was not financially viable to continue these operations. The directors took the difficult decision to cease trading in early February 2020.
Yours faithfully
French Duncan LLP
French Duncan LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in Scotland SO300004 A list of Partners is available for inspection at the Registered Office: 133 Finnieston Street, Glasgow G3 8HB Where the expression ‘Partner’ is used, this means a member of French Duncan LLP All correspondence signed by a named individual is signed for and on behalf of French Duncan LLP Registered to carry on Audit work by the Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland From: Adam DellArmi
Good afternoon,
I can confirm that the offer we have currently is the only offer received within the last 12 months.
Kind Regards,
Adam Dell’Armi Senior Sales Negotiator
T: 01772 775 786
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-dell-armi-1b010279/
“The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited”.
“Altius Group, Creating Wealth for our Clients”
Business Buyers Tustin Court, Unit 1, First Floor, Port Way, Ashton-On-Ribble, Preston, PR2 2YQ This drawing must not be scaled, only written dimensions to be respected.
All dimensions are to be checked/confirmed on site prior to materials being ordered with special care given to items prefabricated off site.
This drawing is the copyright of Clark Design Architecture and must not be copied or reproduced without permission.
This drawing must be read in conjunction with the contract specification and all other architects, engineers, drawings and layouts, schedules and details.
No changes to be made without out consultation with 2.3m HIGH RETAINING WALL 2.3m HIGH RETAINING WALL Clark Design.
6386 2027 1158 600 1000
600 2500 1917
W. 2027 1299 3222 PAVING
FENCE STUDIO 2400 2400 SHOWER ROOM 1380
HW
1800 STORE CELLAR PATH OFF STREET CAR PARKING SPACE 2.5x5m 4231
BEDROOM STORE GRASS 19281100
LOUNGE 3792
PARKING 6061 5000 LANTERN 1100
ST 589 SLATE/RENDER FINISHED MASONRY 1800 WALL 1m HIGH
KITCHEN 2830 1452 WASTE BINS FENCE
1635 FEMALE W.C ST 4517 KITCHEN 1100 589 3771
1750
600
PORCH 1480 1480 1500 TOILET 651 UTILITY 3643
PATH
ELEC. CUP.
E DRIVEWAY SITTING KITCHEN
MALE W.C 3815
KITCHEN
2800
LOUNGE BAR LIVING
LOUNGE BAR DINING
PATH
DRIVEWAY GARDEN PARKING 4000 BEER GARDEN
ENTRANCE FROM ENTRANCE FROM GLASGOW ROAD ENTRANCE FROM GLASGOW ROAD GLASGOW ROAD
GLASGOW ROAD PLANNING GLASGOW ROAD
CLARK DESIGN PAVEMENT ARCHITECTURE PAVEMENT Strathleven House, Levenside Rd Dumbarton. G82 3PD EXISITNG SITE PLAN @ 1:100 PROPOSED SITE PLAN @ 1:100 Tel: 01389 756271 Mob: 07780695446 Email: [email protected] Web: www.clarkdesign.org
CLIENT MRS. A. CAMPBELL
0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0m PROJECT SCALE BAR @ 1:100 PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE, EXTENSION & ALTERATIONS 54 GLASGOW ROAD BLANEFIELD. G63 9BP
DRAWING EXISTING PROPOSED SITE PLANS A1 MAR 20 2020/899/03 2.3m HIGH RETAINING WALL RED HATCHING DENOTES DOWNTAKINGS
This drawing must not be scaled, only written dimensions to be respected.
All dimensions are to be checked/confirmed on site prior to materials being ordered with special care given to items prefabricated off site.
This drawing is the copyright of Clark Design Architecture and must not be copied or reproduced without permission.
FENCE This drawing must be read in conjunction with the contract specification and all other architects, engineers, drawings and layouts, schedules and details.
No changes to be made without out consultation with Clark Design. HW STORE CELLAR
STORE FENCE
FEMALE W.C EXISTING ATTIC FLOOR PLAN @ 1:50 KITCHEN
KITCHEN ELEC. CUP.
BEDROOM E
MALE W.C
LOUNGE BAR
LOUNGE BAR BEDROOM ST BEDROOM
PLANNING
EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN @ 1:50 EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN @ 1:50 CLARK DESIGN ARCHITECTURE
Strathleven House, Levenside Rd Dumbarton. G82 3PD Tel: 01389 756271 Mob: 07780695446 Email: [email protected] Web: www.clarkdesign.org
CLIENT MRS. A. CAMPBELL
PROJECT PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE, EXTENSION & ALTERATIONS 54 GLASGOW ROAD BLANEFIELD. G63 9BP
DRAWING
0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0m EXISTING SCALE BAR @ 1:100 PLANS & ELEVATIONS A1 MAR 20 2020/899/02 0 0.51.0 2.0m EXISTING REAR ELEVATION @ 1:100 EXISTING GABLE ELEVATION @ 1:100 SCALE BAR @ 1:50 2.3m HIGH RETAINING WALL This drawing must not be scaled, only written dimensions to be respected.
All dimensions are to be checked/confirmed on site 6386 prior to materials being ordered with special care given 2027 1158 600 1000 to items prefabricated off site. 3547 This drawing is the copyright of Clark Design 600 Architecture and must not be copied or reproduced 2500 1917 ATTIC STORAGE v. without permission.
This drawing must be read in conjunction with the W. 2m HEADROOM 2027 1299 3222 contract specification and all other architects, engineers, drawings and layouts, schedules and STUDIO v. details. 2400 2400 SHOWER ROOM SHOWER ROOM 2432 No changes to be made without out consultation with 2334 Clark Design. 1000 6220 1380
MASTER 1800
W. 4231 2m HEADROOM BEDROOM v. v. v. 600
19281100 8561
LOUNGE 3792 6061 5000 LANTERN 1100
ST 589
1800
KITCHEN 2830 1452 PROPOSED ATTIC FLOOR PLAN @ 1:50
1635 ST 4517 1100 589 3771 2000 1750
600
PORCH 2000 1480 1480 1500 TOILET 651 UTILITY 3643
2570
BEDROOM STUDIO 3406 3585 2000 3647
SITTING 2000
KITCHEN 3815
2291 KITCHEN 1632
BATHROOM 2800 600 2752 BEDROOM W. LIVING 4052
PROPOSED PART SECTION @ 1:50
BEDROOM 2300
DINING 2043 2826 3686 1200 PLANNING
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN @ 1:50 CLARK DESIGN ARCHITECTURE PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN @ 1:50 EXTENSION EXTERNAL FINISHES: Strathleven House, Levenside Rd Dumbarton. G82 3PD WALLS: Tel: 01389 756271 CEDAR CLADDING. Mob: 07780695446 WINDOWS/DOORS: Email: [email protected] GREY ALUMINIMUM FRAMED DOUBLE Web: www.clarkdesign.org GLAZED UNITS. CLIENT MRS. A. CAMPBELL
ROOF: PROJECT SARNIFIL FLAT ROOFING MEMBRANE. PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE, EXTENSION & ALTERATIONS GUTTERS/RAIN WATER PIPES/ 54 GLASGOW ROAD SOFFITS/FASCIAS: BLANEFIELD. G63 9BP
BLACK UPVC TO MATCH EXISTING DRAWING
0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0m 2700 SCALE BAR @ 1:100 2100 PROPOSED PLANS & ELEVATIONS
0 0.51.0 2.0m A1 MAR 20 2020/899/03 SCALE BAR @ 1:50 PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION @ 1:100 PROPOSED GABLE ELEVATION @ 1:100 This drawing must not be scaled, only written dimensions to be respected.
All dimensions are to be checked/confirmed on site prior to materials being ordered with special care given to items prefabricated off site.
This drawing is the copyright of Clark Design Architecture and must not be copied or reproduced without permission.
This drawing must be read in conjunction with the contract specification and all other architects, engineers, drawings and layouts, schedules and details.
No changes to be made without out consultation with Clark Design.
PLANNING
CLARK DESIGN ARCHITECTURE
Strathleven House, Levenside Rd Dumbarton. G82 3PD Tel: 01389 756271 Mob: 07780695446 Email: [email protected] Web: www.clarkdesign.org
CLIENT MRS. A. CAMPBELL
PROJECT EXISTING ROOF PLAN @ 1:50 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN @ 1:50 PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE, EXTENSION & ALTERATIONS 54 GLASGOW ROAD BLANEFIELD. G63 9BP
DRAWING
00.51.0 2.0m EXISTING & PROPOSED SCALE BAR @ 1:50 ROOF PLANS A1 MAR 20 2020/899/04 BLOCK PLAN @ 1:500
5m 10m 20m 50m NORTH SCALE BAR 1:500 y
60
OFF STREET CAR PARKING SPACE (2.5 x 5.0m)
Surgery LB CLARK DESIGN ARCHITECTURE
Strathleven House, Levenside Rd Dumbarton. G82 3PD 56 Tel: 01389 756271 52 Mob: 07780695446 Email: [email protected] 58 Web: www.clarkdesign.org St Kessog's Well MRS. A. CAMPBELL PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE, & ALTERATIONS
54 GLASGOW ROAD
BLANEFIELD. G63 9BP
65 63 BLOCK PLAN
1:500 @ A4 MAR 20 2020/899/B1 50m 2020/899/L1 NORTH MAR 20 ARCHITECTURE Tel: 01389 756271 Mob: 07780695446 Web: www.clarkdesign.org 20m Email: [email protected] PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE, & ALTERATIONS 54 GLASGOW ROAD BLANEFIELD. G63 9BP MRS. A. CAMPBELL 10m CLARK DESIGN LOCATION PLAN Strathleven House, Levenside Rd Dumbarton. G82 3PD 1:1250 @ A4 5m SCALE BAR 1:1250 LOCATION PLAN @ 1:1250
52
GLASGOW ROAD 39a
PH
255722679692NS5579 679675 679650 679625 679600 255722679584NS5579 255700 100053143 Survey Ordnance 2020 255700© Crown copyright 255675 255675 255650 255650 255625 25562520 MapServe 255600 255594 679692 NS5579 679675 679650 679625 679600 255600 metres 0 10 255594 679584 NS5579
CRAIGMARLOCH VIEW CRAIGMARLOCH
41 to 53 to 41 Surgery
56
58
60
MapServe 63
RC Church 65 LB
St Kessog's Well © Crown copyright 2020 Ordnance Survey 100053143 Presby PC 20 6 10 metres 0
CAMPSIE DENE RD Item 4b
Comments for Planning Application 20/00252/FUL
Application Summary Application Number: 20/00252/FUL Address: Blane Valley Inn 54 Glasgow Road Blanefield G63 9BP Proposal: Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house Case Officer: Maryanna Robinson
Customer Details Name: Mr philip graves Address: Towerwood Cottage, Mugdock Road, Strathblane G62 8EJ
Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Like many in the village, I regret the loss of a much appreciated community asset.
The timing of this application makes it difficult to see how a new owner can be found to run the BVI as a pub or restaurant, given worries about social distancing etc. But I believe we should allow a longer period of time to seek new owners before we accept the conversion option.
We are also concerned about the viability of the shops opposite if the parking slots "shared" by the shops are lost.
Philip Graves
Comments for Planning Application 20/00252/FUL
Application Summary Application Number: 20/00252/FUL Address: Blane Valley Inn 54 Glasgow Road Blanefield G63 9BP Proposal: Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house Case Officer: Maryanna Robinson
Customer Details Name: Dr Jamie Hornsby Address: 23 Craigfern Drive, Blanefield G63 9DP
Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The Blane Valley Inn has been a valuable asset to our village. Although I am relatively new to the village I know it has been an important part of village life for many years. It is essential the local business premises are kept for their intended use to support the local economy. Loss of the Blane Valley Inn as a pub will mean loss of part of the character and identity of the village. All attempts should be made to make the BVI a successful Public House and restaurant rather than selling it off as a private house. Comments for Planning Application 20/00252/FUL
Application Summary Application Number: 20/00252/FUL Address: Blane Valley Inn 54 Glasgow Road Blanefield G63 9BP Proposal: Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house Case Officer: Maryanna Robinson
Customer Details Name: Mrs Lindsay Keegans Address: 18 Craigfern Drive, Blanefield G63 9DP
Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The pub is a valuable community asset. To covert it to private housing would ultimately condem the 'hub' that joins both ends of the village together.
The pub provides jobs for local people, a meeting point for many community groups, and a sense of history in our village. It provides parking and footfall for other local businesses. It is a gathering point for young and old, incredibly important in building a strong community.
If this planning was to be passed, we will lose the last available location within the village from which to establish a business.
I object to this planning being passed during the lockdown. This application has largely gone under the radar with many people's attention focused elsewhere at the moment.
I believe there was interest in the pub as a going concern, this should be given further exploration as we move through the phases of the current situation. Our community will need this asset more than ever.
Comments for Planning Application 20/00252/FUL
Application Summary Application Number: 20/00252/FUL Address: Blane Valley Inn 54 Glasgow Road Blanefield G63 9BP Proposal: Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house Case Officer: Maryanna Robinson
Customer Details Name: Miss Kate Ramsden Address: 15 Blane Place, Blanefield G63 9HS
Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I oppose the conversion of the pub into a house on the basis that:
The pub offers employment to local people, especially younger people so allowing them to remain within the village for work
Its locality ensures that the facilities are not all weighted towards one end of the village (its position and parking encourages use of the small shop and cafe opposite)
It is important for the village to have a pub, especially as the after-hours bus timetables have been reduced so making it harder for villagers to get further afield.
The Blane Valley brings together a huge variety of villagers, often being used as an after-event stop-off for many people on their way home. From:John Gray Sent:12 Jun 2020 00:50:29 +0100 To:Maryanna Robinson;planning Cc:[email protected];Alistair Berrill;Graham Lambie;Rob Davies Subject:Strathblane CC comments on Blane Valley Inn change of use application 20/00252/FUL
Dear Ms Robinson
Thank you for your understanding while our public meetings have been disrupted by the Covid-19 lockdown. The members of Strathblane Community Council met online and discussed this application on 8 June 2020.
Strathblane Community Council opposes the change of use and the design of the proposed dwelling house for the following reasons.
While the timing of this application in the middle of the pandemic lockdown makes it hard to visualise the pub as a thriving operation, this change of use is an irreversible, once-in-a-century (longer!). It should not be made lightly or on short-term grounds.
The pub offers employment to local people, especially younger people so allowing them to remain within the village for work.
Its locality ensures that the facilities are not all weighted towards one end of the village (its position and parking encourages use of the small shop and cafe opposite).
It is important for the village to have a pub, especially as the after-hours bus timetables have been reduced so making it harder for villagers to get further afield for work or leisure.
The Blane Valley Inn brings together a huge variety of villagers, often being used as an after-event stop- off for many people on their way home, as well as for walkers, cyclists etc.
There is a recognised need for new housing in the village, but the need is not for a large single dwelling. The proposal actually loses a 2/3-bedroom flat which currently exists over the pub, as well as losing the pub itself.
Policy considerations
The above considerations relate directly to the placemaking policies at the heart of the adopted Local Development Plan. The LDP says on page 17 that the villages of Strathblane and Blanefield should follow a “Sustainable Development” approach, defined by “What and Why” principles:
What
Concentrate development within settlements;
Controlled small-scale expansion of existing settlements consistent with their size and role in the Settlement Hierarchy, to include new affordable and market housing and business space;
Identification and protection of village centres.
Why
To help sustain local services and facilities through increased diversity in the population, recognising that such services are more readily accessible within settlements;
To contribute to the housing need and demand in the area and local employment opportunities.
Primary Policy 3 of the LDP (page 48) states that [the] “loss of services through changes of use/demolition, where they serve an important community and/or employment function (e.g. post offices, pharmacies), will also be resisted”.
We submit that the proposed change of use, as well as the style of house proposed, goes against all the principles highlighted in bold above. While the pub was on the market, it is understood that at least one offer was made to take it on as a going concern. If that is true, then it is premature to say that it should be lost forever, even if a higher price would be on offer for a house.
The pub and its opposite row of shops form a clear village centre, and have done for over 100 years. The pub frontage provides the whole of the parking for south-bound passing trade for the shops. Nearby are war memorial, post box, (closed) public WC and another shop.
The shop opposite has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the pub (partly because of the informal parking space that the pub offers across the road. For this reason, the loss of the pub permanently would goes against the principle of sustaining local services and facilities. The comments from Mr Wilson about the alternative parking at the Chapel are noted. While this may be a solution for a coffee shop/restaurant destination, the convenience store relies much more on "in-and-out" passing trade, that will not stop if there is not parking.
The housing need according to the Spatial Strategy is for affordable flats and houses. Therefore, even if closure of the pub were inevitable, the site would be far better adapted to extension and conversion into affordable flats, rather than one house. (Indeed the buildings opposite combine both retail and residential flats above. Of course there is a flat already in the pub complex, which would be lost in this proposal.)
Loss of the pub means a loss of jobs for several people whenever it has been operating, one of the few opportunities for employment within the community. The jobs can be full- or part-time, permanent or temporary, suiting a range of people, especially school-age and young people.
Conclusion
In our community with highly pressured status, there are few opportunities for new housing and fewer still opportunities for new retail/leisure development. This proposal therefore represents a risk of losing something that can never be regained, for the gain of something which the community does not currently need. The timing of the proposal is unfortunate, but simply means that a longer period of time is required before the pub is written off as a hopeless cause.
On behalf of the community we thank you for your attention.
Regards,
John Gray, Planning Correspondent for Strathblane Community Council
Comments for Planning Application 20/00252/FUL
Application Summary Application Number: 20/00252/FUL Address: Blane Valley Inn 54 Glasgow Road Blanefield G63 9BP Proposal: Change of use and extension of Public House to form dwelling house Case Officer: Maryanna Robinson
Customer Details Name: Mr James Wilson Address: Coffee At The Wilsons, 41 - 43 Glasgow Road, Blanefield G63 9JD
Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:We would like to point out that Coffee at the Wilsons and anyone representing our business has not commented on the loss of so called business since the Blane Valley Inn closed its doors to the general public.
There seems to be certain people who are objecting, stating we have lost sales since the public house closed. This is totally untrue and these individuals do not represent our business.
Regarding the Blane Valley car park , we have always known it was a private car park and was just very lucky to be able to use the space whenever we could. We recommend now that our customers park either at Edmonstone Hall or behind the Chapel where we will be giving monthly donations to the Chapel for the privilege. Item 4c Planning Reference 20/00252/FUL: Blane Valley Inn
Response to Notice of Review Submission
Relevant Planning History
The Applicant submitted an application for three pods in the rear garden (beer garden) area of the pub in 2019 (Planning Reference 19/00950/FUL). The agent indicated that the pods would help support the ongoing financial viability of the pub. The proposal seemed acceptable at first glance and it was hoped that it could be granted consent. However, on closer inspection and following a site visit, it became very apparent that the pods could not be approved due to the impact on residential amenity. The Agent, while disappointed, appeared understanding at this point and ultimately agreed that the pods would have an impact on residential amenity. Roads Development Control Officers objected to the proposal on grounds of insufficient parking and the Planning Authority received 7No. letters of objection to the proposal. Planning permission was subsequently refused on grounds of harm to residential amenity and insufficient parking. This was not an easy decision for the Planning Authority and this we believe is reflected in the Report of Handling.
The Planning Officer discussed alternative options with the Agent, including a possible rear extension to the pub to provide, for example bed and breakfast or other accommodation and offered to meet the Applicant on site to consider this further. Other possible options to help the pub diversify are cited in the Report of Handling (under ‘Note to Applicant’). The Agent advised that an extension to the pub was not feasible and no consideration has been given to alternative options.
The agent also highlighted the fact that the pub owners were aware of complaints /concerns by the local community regarding noise generated from the premises during late evening. Those concerns were confirmed to some degree in the letters of objection received during the consultation of the application for the pods. The agent also advised that the pub was struggling financially at the time and that the pub manager had made a decision to close the pub due to a combination of factors, including the refusal of planning permission for the pods, coupled with objections to the proposed pods from the community and ongoing complaints concerning noise/residential amenity. The inference drawn from those discussions at that time was that the community would not object to the closure of the pub and/or subsequent change of use of the pub.
Notice of Review Application
The Planning Officer made early contact with the agent who submitted the proposed change of use and rear extension application, (Planning Reference 20/00252/FUL), which is the subject of this review. The initial concern raised with the agent at the time focused on the proposed flat roof rear extension and finishing materials. The Officer suggested amendments to the rear extension to incorporate a more traditional pitched roof and alternative finishing materials. The agent was firm in his response that he did not wish to make any amendments to the design of the rear extension. The agent argues that Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions is not relevant and should not be applied to commercial buildings. However, this point is refuted since the application proposes a change of use from a public house to a dwelling house. It follows that any proposed alterations and/or extensions to a new dwelling house should comply with supplementary guidance for residential alterations or extensions. Aside from the proposal to change the use of the pub to a dwelling house, it was agreed amongst Officers that the application be refused on design grounds.
1 Planning Reference 20/00252/FUL: Blane Valley Inn
The Planning Officer also contacted the original agent (who submitted the pods application and this Notice of Review Application) to establish whether the pub had been sold since the Certificates submitted with the application indicated that the pub was in different ownership from the previous (pods) application. The agent advised that the pub had not been sold. Therefore there is a discrepancy in the Certificates submitted with the application.
Following a period of consultation, the Planning Authority received 11.No. objections primarily opposing a change of use of the pub to a dwelling house. Those objections provided some evidence that the local community, including Strathblane Community Council which acts for the wider community, did not wish to see the closure of this pub and strongly valued its retention. The objections also highlighted issues that required further consideration by the Planning Authority. Procedurally it was correct to undertake some due diligence at this point to establish whether there was sufficient evidence to support the proposed change of use and ensure compliance with Primary Policy 3. Information collated, through various sources, revealed the following:
1. The Applicant purchased the Blane Valley Inn in February 2018 (Source: Dram Magazine Online, May 2018 at an asking price of around £200,000 (Source: Nova Loca online). https://dramscotland.co.uk/2018/12/05/key-to-the-loch-licensee-interview-with-sandy- fraser/ https://www.novaloca.com/commercial-property-leisure/for-sale/blanefield/-blane- valley-inn-/152511.
2. It is understood that within the first two years of trading the pub had closed on at least two occasions (Source: Members of the community). The latest closure was permanent and occurred shortly after the decision to refuse planning consent for the proposed pods (Source: Daily Record Online, February 2020). https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/last-orders-called-popular-village- 21468731.
3. The pub was placed for sale on the open market at an asking price of £320,000 during late 2019 (Source: Business Buyers online and Zoopla) and remained on the market while the planning applications for the proposed pods were live (Planning Reference 19/00725/FUL which was withdrawn and Planning Reference 19/00950/FUL which was refused). https://businessbuyers.co.uk/business/blane-valley-inn/
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/commercial/details/52176512.
In summary, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify a change of use from a public house to a dwelling house for the following reasons:
x The pub appears to have been placed on the market for a short period only (pre- Covid-19) and not the standard 12 months as would be required. x The asking price (Jan 2020) is significantly higher (60% increase) than the purchase price in February 2018. This in itself may have deterred prospective purchasers. x The pub appears to have closed on at least two occasions over a two year period, which possibly accounts for the loss of trade and sales and would explain the overall loss of £32,000 (£20,000 year ending October 2019 and £12,000 during a 3 month period to end 31 January 2020 when the pub permanently closed).
2 Planning Reference 20/00252/FUL: Blane Valley Inn
x There is no evidence to suggest that change of use to a dwelling house is the only means to secure retention of the building and/or demonstrate that the public house use is no longer viable in this location.
It is advised that without the requirement to provide sufficient evidence in this context, public houses throughout the Stirling area and villages could be purchased at comparably low prices, converted to dwelling houses and sold on at inflated prices to the highest bidder. This could have serious ramifications for the provision of community services in rural areas.
Further Evidence Submitted in Notice of Review Application
The agent claims that the pub has been marketed for 12 months and has provided a brief statement from an agent at Business Buyers to this effect. Ordinarily applicants would be expected to provide full details of the methods used to market the property. This must include copies of advertisements in local and trade press, details of adverts placed on websites including dates, use of mail shots, sales literature, e-mails and use of specialised licensed trade agents where necessary etc. No evidence of this nature has been provided.
The agent claims that the pub is not economically viable and has made a loss of £32,000 to 31 January 2020 and with the further permanent closure of the pub, will sustain a projected loss of £48,000 (based on a recorded loss of £12,000 during the first quarter of the financial year). However, in terms of evidence of commercial non-viability, the Planning Authority would ordinarily expect to see the last two full years of audited accounts, details provided of all reasonable efforts made to preserve the continuing operation of the facility as a public house and the affect on the pub’s trading performance.
Conclusion
The design and finishing materials of the proposed rear extension are considered to be unacceptable for the reasons outlined in the Report of Handling. There is insufficient evidence at this point to justify a change of use of the pub to a dwelling house. The final crucial point is that the pub is a valued community resource and its past performance should have no bearing on its future potential.
Note: The Planning Authority is however mindful that the current Covid-19 restrictions may restrict the future sale and/or operation of the premises as an on-going concern in the short to medium term.
3
Sheila
Thank-you for this - and the chance to add a few comments, as follows:
At last the applicant has had the sense to add some financial figures to support the lack of a commercial future for the BVI. Covid, of course, makes it all the more difficult to see a profitable future.
As an experienced financial analyst, I would have preferred more detail and a longer period than a year's accounts to judge its viability. Under new ownership since early 2018, one could imagine some heavy upfront investment in refurbishment etc - have these been included in the loss figure quoted? The owners' time (section 4.9) is not included, but is this really a material figure?
Somewhat now irrelevant, but extrapolating a year's result from the first 3 months of this financial year (4.14) is dubious given the presumed seasonality of the business.
I would suggest the Review decides whether a change of use is acceptable, noting how Covid is affecting hospitality businesses, and agree on outline planning permission only - which will allow further negotiations on design to continue afterwards.
Philip
Philip Graves Dear Ms McLean
Thank you for your letter about the Review on the above application.
The community council is not holding formal public meetings under the Coronavirus conditions, but community council members have reviewed the applicant's Grounds for Review.
We briefly add the following to our previous comments:
- It is welcome that some evidence has been provided to justify the change of use, which was missing from the earlier application. The LRB have at least something to work with.
- The Grounds for Review at 4.10 quotes an adviser saying "despite the best efforts of the directors... this part of the business was ... not financially viable". We certainly recognise the efforts and investments that went into improving the pub after it was acquired by the Frasers. However, the owners also have other business interests and subsequent acquisitions. It may be understandable if the owners had to focus their attention on bigger things elsewhere, but it doesn't tell us what would have been possible for an owner focused on this premises. For example, there was enthusiasm for dining at the pub under the new ownership, but this enthusiasm waned as the limited menu remained the same over time.
- With regard to marketing of the pub for sale, the applicant explains that no formal offers were received, other than the one for conversion to a house. We have no reason to doubt this. We noted that the asking price back in 2018 was £200k and it may be expected that the actual price paid was less than that and therefore much less than - perhaps even half of - the £320k that what was being asked in 2019-2020. A buyer would have to work out for themselves whether the difference was justified by the improvements made in the interim.
We entrust the LRB to make their determination on the information available.
Regards,
John Gray, Planning Correspondent for Strathblane Community Council Item 4d
Application No: 20/00252/FUL
DRAFT CONDITIONS IN THE EVENT OF THE REVIEW BEING UPHELD AND PERMISSION GRANTED
1. Details of Materials: A scheme of/Samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roof of the development granted consent shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority before any work starts on site.
Reason: In order to achieve an acceptable form of external treatment
Item 4e
31 August 2020
Sheila McLean Governance Officer Stirling Council Room 53 Old Viewforth Stirling FK8 2ET
Ref MHP: 2020_0033
Dear Sheila
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DECISION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE AND EXTENSION OF PUBLIC HOUSE TO FORM DWELLING HOUSE, BLANE VALLEY INN, 54 GLASGOW ROAD, BLANEFIELD, G63 9BP (LPA REFERENCE 20/00252/FUL)
Further to your e-mail dated 14 August 2020, the following comments are submitted on behalf of the current owners of the review site (the Fraser Family), and the applicants (Mr Ross and Mrs Alexandra Campbell).
The Proposed Change of Use
The first reason for refusal of the review application is as follows:
“The proposed change of use is likely to diminish the range of community facilities on offer in the village and will have a significant impact on the vitality and viability of the village much to the detriment of the local community, contrary to the Spatial Strategy and Primary Policy 3 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018.”
In order to support this assertion the Planning Officer has made a number of vague statements which simply cannot be substantiated.
It has first been stated that the asking price in January 2020 is significantly higher than the purchase price in February 2018 “and that this may have deterred prospective purchasers”.
The current owners of the Blane Valley Inn purchased the property from Belhaven Brewery in February 2018, for around £200,000. At that time the business was being
MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street, Helensburgh, G84 8BN Tel: 01436 674777 Mob: 07816 907203 Web: www.mhplanning.co.uk Email: [email protected]
operated by a live-in manager, who only opened the building to the public on an intermittent basis. No accounts were able to be submitted. What was previously a beautiful building had also been allowed to fall into disrepair under the ownership of the brewery, on the basis that it had been losing money for a considerable period of time.
The current owners, upon completing the purchase, immediately sought to address various urgent issues including problems with the drainage. They also refurbished the kitchens, painted the interior and the exterior of the building, resolved a number of problems with the electrics, and landscaped the rear garden area. All of this cost in the region of £100,000, hence the increased sale price. The advertised sale price of £320,000 is a fair market value, and the Planning Officer has no evidence to contradict this.
The Planning Officer has also said that the public house “appears to have closed on at least two occasions over a two year period, which possibly accounts for the loss of trade and sales and would explain the overall loss of £32,000 (£20,000 year ending October 2019 and £12,000 during a 3 month period to end 31 January 2020 when the pub permanently closed)”. This statement shows how little the Planning Officer knows about the operation of a public house, and the current owners, who have significant experience of the hospitality trade (owing both the Oak Tree and Carbeth Inns) take exception to the Planning Officer’s unfounded comments. The public house did not close on “at least two occasions” and the former manageress (who lives in Blanefield) is prepared to issue a statement to that effect. The simple reason why there has been an overall loss of c£32,000 (from October 2018 to January 2020) is because the public houses was not used by enough people, and it was therefore not a viable business.
With respect to the viability of the business the current owner’s accountants, French Duncan, have confirmed by letter that is the case. They have said:
“French Duncan LLP are the appointed tax agents and accountants for Cruachan Developments Ltd, the company which owns the above noted property. We can confirm that the company purchased Blane Valley Inn in January 2018 and trading commenced in March 2018. Despite the best efforts of the directors, it became apparent that this section of the business was running at a loss and it was not financially viable to continue these operations. The directors took the difficult decision to cease trading in early February 2020.”
In addition, the owner’s specialist accountant, Mr Ian Patterson, who has over 45 years’ experience in the industry, has also stated that the business is no longer viable. He has said:
“I have now reviewed the financial position of Blane Valley for the year ended 31 October 2019 and the 3 months ended 31 January 2020 and consider that
Page 2 of 5
the business is not viable and that you should dispose of it in the best possible manner to recoup some of your losses.”
For the Planning Officer to seek to question these statements, made by experienced and qualified financial professionals, is simply unacceptable.
The main reason for the refusal of planning permission, notwithstanding that fact that the Planning Officer initially advised in writing that “the principle of change of use to a house is of course acceptable, appears to be as follows:
“… public houses throughout the Stirling area and villages could be purchased at comparably low prices, converted to dwelling houses and sold on at inflated prices to the highest bidder. This could have serious ramifications for the provision of community services in rural areas”.
The Fraser Family take exception to this statement, which clearly implies that they simply purchased the Blane Valley Inn in order to sell it and make a ‘quick buck”. This could not be further from the truth. The Frasers have over 45 years’ experience in the hospitality business, winning numerous business and tourism awards. They are the largest hospitality employer in East Loch Lomond side. With all of their combined experience they genuinely though that they could turn, what has for many years been a failing business, around.
They tried many options to increase trade from both locals and tourists. This included quiz nights, open nights for food tasting, allowing dogs into the bar, and bringing back the local’s favourite beers and lagers. They brought in new menu ideas, and different chefs, and changed the menu regularly. They had discussions with local residents about various options for the use of the upstairs of the building. Sadly the ‘bottom line’ is that they did not receive enough trade from the residents of the village and eventually, in February 2020, they made the difficult decision to close. It is not unreasonable to say that every effort was made to make the business viable, and that if the Fraser Family cannot make it work, then nobody can! It is therefore sincerely hoped that the members of the Local Review Body will not be influenced by this entirely hypothetical opinion, which has no applicability to the review application.
The Planning Officer has furthermore said that the public house appears to have been placed on the market for a short period only (pre-Covid-19), and not the standard 12 months as would be required. As with other statements that the Planning Officer has made, this one is also factually incorrect. The business was first put on the market in June 2019.
The company used to market the business, Bruce and Company, are without doubt market leaders in the hospitality business, not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK. The premises were marketed through their website, and also in the licensed trade news. For the Planning Officer to therefore imply that the owners have not tried hard
Page 3 of 5
enough to market the property is unacceptable. From June 2019 until the current point in time (now 14 months) there has not been one legal offer made to purchase the business in order to continue to trade as a licensed premises. This can be confirmed by Bruce and Company if required.
With regard to the statement that the Blane Valley Inn is a “valued community resource”, this might possibly be the case if it were not for the existence of the much larger Kirkhouse Inn. The reality is that times have changed, and that multiple village public houses are not sustainable across Scotland. The former manageress of the Blane Valley Inn has confirmed that local residents, including members of the Community Council, were very rare visitors, either for social drinks or for meals.
Finally, the Planning Officer has said that there is no evidence to suggest that change of use to a dwelling house is the only means to secure retention of the building and/or demonstrate that the public house use is no longer viable in this location. It has been demonstrated without any shadow of a doubt that the public house is no longer economically viable. As well as the Kirkhouse Inn, other community facilities in the village include the Village Club, the Edmondstone Hall, the primary school and the Scout hall. All of these more than capable of addressing the needs of the village for gatherings and socialising.
The building was not built as a public house; it started its life in around 1850 as domestic house. Now that its use as a public house has come to a natural end, all that the review application seeks is to therefore return the building to its original use.
The Proposed Extension
The second reason for refusal of the review application states:
“The proposed rear extension by virtue of its scale, flat roof and external finishes would have a negative impact on the character and integrity of the host building and is contrary to Policies 1.1 and 2.12 of the Stirling Local Development Plan 2018 and paragraphs 2.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions.”
The Blane Valley Inn is not a listed building, and it is not located within a conservation area. As the proposed extension is entirely to the rear of the main building and will replace a range of existing outbuildings (which will be demolished), a more flexible approach to the design of the extension should be able to be taken. A more ‘contemporary’ design solution should not automatically be presumed against, if that is what the applicant desires.
There are of course many precedents where a traditional building has been successfully extended with a contemporary design. The architect’s plans are holistic by design, as opposed to the ramshackle mess which is currently on site, and the
Page 4 of 5 applicants very much feel that it is aesthetically sympathetic to the nature and heritage of the main building.
Given the location of the proposed extension to the rear of the building it will be barely noticeable from any public vantage point. Furthermore, it is considered that the design and choice of external materials are “complementary” to those of the main building. To “complement” means to “complete or enhance by providing something additional”, it does not mean to be identical to.
Conclusion
In conclusion it has been confirmed by two different firms of qualified accountants that the Blane Valley Inn is no longer economically viable, and the refusal of planning permission for the change of use of the building to a dwelling will not prompt the re-opening of the public house. No business can continue to carry an annual loss of in the region of £30-40,000 for long. Given the current Covid-19 situation it is now extremely unlikely that there will be any realistic offers for the business, as a ‘going concern’. Without a new use being found the building will therefore remain empty and unused for the foreseeable future.
Yours sincerely
Michael Hyde MRTPI MH Planning Associates
Page 5 of 5
Item 4f
Policy 1.1: Site Planning
All new development, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, are required to contribute, in a positive manner, to quality of the surrounding built and natural environment. All proposals are therefore expected to meet the following criteria (where relevant): (a) The siting, layout and density of new development should; contribute towards or create a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings; respect, complement and connect with its surroundings; be safely accessed; and create a sense of identity within the development. (b) All new development should consider and respect site topography, and any surrounding important landmarks (built or natural), views or skylines. (c) The design should be appropriate to both any building to which it relates, and the wider surroundings in terms of appearance, position, height, scale, massing, and should use materials, finishes and colours which complement those prevalent. (d) In urban settings in particular, buildings should be positioned so as to respect an existing building line, or establish one where none exists. Thereafter, access, uses and orientation of principal elevations should reinforce the street or areas of open space. (e) All buildings, streets and open spaces should be considered and designed in a manner so as to create safe, accessible, inclusive places for people, which are easily navigable, particularly on foot, bicycle and public transport. Any core path, established rights of way, and other important access routes should be protected and retained. (f) It should be demonstrated that buildings and spaces have been designed with future adaptability in mind wherever possible and appropriate. (g) Existing buildings, structures and natural features that contribute to local townscape and biodiversity should be retained and sensitively integrated into proposals. (h) Consider and plan for how the development will be serviced including the potential for heat networks and ensuring that adequate space is given to facilitating recycling and the storage of waste bins. All new development should comply with SG: Placemaking which supports this policy by providing detailed guidance on all aspects of site planning and design.
Policy 2.12: Residential Alterations and Extensions
The alteration and / or extension of residential properties will be supported provided that all the relevant criteria are satisfied: (a) The proposal is of a scale, size, massing and design that is subordinate and sympathetic to them building to be extended and the wider townscape, and uses materials appropriate to its context. (b) The proposal does not result in an over-development of the plot, with sufficient space remaining for garden ground, parking, and bin storage, which is comparable to the amenity afforded to surrounding residential properties in this regard. (c) The proposal does not result in a material detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties in terms of privacy, noise or loss of daylight. [SG: Placemaking supports this policy by providing further guidance on the siting and design of alterations and extensions]. Primary Policy 3: Provision of Infrastructure
(a) Should no further infrastructure be provided, there will be significant infrastructure deficiencies as a result of the scale and location of development within the Plan. Management and enhancement of existing infrastructure, and reducing the demands for new infrastructure will be the preferred approach in supporting the implementation of the Spatial Strategy. (b) Land necessary for the provision of identified and anticipated infrastructure (i.e. for enhancements to the transport network as identified in National, Regional and Local Transport Strategies, and through the LDP DPMTAG Transport Appraisal, new or expanded schools, new and improved healthcare facilities and recycling Bring Sites), will be safeguarded where appropriate as shown in the Settlement Statements. (c) Shared use of facilities in the provision of educational, social, recreational, health and wider community infrastructure will be supported. The loss of services through changes of use/demolition, where they serve an important community and/or employment function (e.g. post offices, pharmacies), will also be resisted. (d) Continuing enhancement of digital communications infrastructure will be encouraged in accordance with the principles set out in SPP. In particular, developers will be required, in consultation with service providers, to install the necessary infrastructure to enable fibre-based high-speed broadband in new homes and business premises. (e) Where appropriate, transport infrastructure corridors, sustainable drainage elements, open space and Green Corridor provision etc., should be integrated with the Green Network (see Policy 1.3 and SG: Green Networks and Open Space).
[Infrastructure provision and enhancement is likely to require input from developers. Policy 3.3 and SG: Developer Contributions support this policy by defining the scope of, and mechanisms for securing Developer Contributions].
Supplementary Guidance SG12 Residential Alterations and Extensions
Extension to a house should be: sympathetic in scale, positioning and detail to the original building; considerably smaller than the original house and; should be designed to look like as if it is an integral part. Extensions to vernacular-style buildings should not result in the loss of the character of the original building (paragraph 2.1). They should generally have pitched roofs at the same pitch as the original with a minimum slope of 30 (unless the original is shallower). Flat roofed extensions are not generally acceptable and will only considered in certain instances, where for example, a pitched roof cannot be accommodated (paragraph 5.2). Materials must be chosen with care to avoid destroying the integrity of the original building and should be the same or compatible and be sympathetic to the character of the original and neighbouring buildings (paragraph 5.3). Whilst contrasting materials can be successful, the introduction of new materials not used in your building or neighbouring buildings is generally discouraged as they may make your extension look like an ‘add-on’ rather than an integral part of the original (paragraph 5.4).