Redirecting to East Ayrshire Council

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

NORTHERN LOCAL PLANNING COMMITTEE 27 JANUARY 2012

08/0922/FL: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ROADS, FOOTPATHS AND ANCILLARY WORKS - RESUBMISSION - INCLUDING FLOOD PREVENTION WORKS

AT MAXHOLM ROAD, RICCARTON, KILMARNOCK, EAST AYRSHIRE BY MAXHOLM DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development

Click for Application Details: http://eplanning.east- ayrshire.gov.uk/online/caseFile.do?category=application&caseNo=08/0922/PFL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET

1. DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Proposed Residential Development for 90 houses including roads, footpaths and ancillary works. The scheme includes land raising within the site as well as road improvements on Stoneyhill road and Ayr Road. The housing mix consists of 30 semi-detached and 60 detached houses all with private gardens and private driveways.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 It is recommended that the Planning Application be refused for the reason on the attached sheet.

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 As is indicated in Section 5 of the report, the application is considered to be contrary to the development plan. Therefore, given the terms of Section 25 and Section 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the application should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

3.2 As is indicated in Section 6 above, there are material considerations relevant to this application however the points of raised by the applicant are not of sufficient weight to justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

Should the Committee agree that this application should be approved contrary to the recommendation of the head of planning and economic development then the application will require to be referred to full council as it would be a significant departure from council policy. If the application was subsequently approved by the full Council the matter must be notified to the Scottish Ministers due to the SEPA objection.

Alan Neish Head of Planning and Economic Development

Note: This document combines key sections of the associated report for quick reference and should not in itself be considered as having been the basis for recommendation preparation or decision making by the Planning Authority.

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

NORTHERN LOCAL PLANNING COMMITTEE 27 JANUARY 2012

08/0922/FL: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ROADS, FOOTPATHS AND ANCILLARY WORKS - RESUBMISSION - INCLUDING FLOOD PREVENTION WORKS

AT MAXHOLM ROAD, RICCARTON, KILMARNOCK, EAST AYRSHIRE BY MAXHOLM DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present for determination an application for planning permission which is to be considered by the Local Planning Committee under there scheme of delegation as the proposals represent a major development in terms of the Town and Country Planning( Hierarchy of Developments ) (Scotland ) Regulations 2009.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Site Description: The site is poor quality agricultural land which undulates significantly and extends to approximately 8.5 hectares in area. Low lying farmland adjacent to the River Irvine forms the western boundary of the site. The eastern boundary of the site is the, now vacant, Council housing estate of Maxholm Road , Barnwell Road & Fleming Street. The site has a drainage ditch and electric pylons transversing the site from north to south.

2.2 The northern boundary of the site is formed by the A71 bypass between the Bellfield Interchange and the Moorfield Roundabout. This road sits significantly higher than the application site.

2.3 A portion of the site is located within the SEPA 1;200 year flood event maps.

2.4 Proposed Development: Proposed Residential Development for 90 houses including roads, footpaths and ancillary works. The scheme includes land raising within the site as well as road improvements on Stoneyhill road and Ayr Road. The housing mix consists of 30 semi-detached and 60 detached houses all with private gardens and private driveways

3. CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED

3.1 East Ayrshire Council Housing Services has indicated that Access to the Maxholm site is contained within land owned by the Council, and negotiations would require to be finalised prior to any development works commencing.

The adjacent site at Riccarton West is a Council-owned vacant site which is currently contained in the approved Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2011/ 2012 – 2015/ 2016 for the provision of an element of affordable housing, and is proposed to be contained in the new SHIP which is due to be submitted to the Scottish Government prior to the end of February 2012, following Cabinet approval. In this regard, an outline planning application, 07/1042/OL for the Riccarton West site has been submitted to the Planning Authority. The developer for the Maxholm site had explored the use of shared SUDS and other infrastructure across both sites in light of the close proximity of both developments.

The Private legal agreements of the Council as land owner are not relevant to the determination of this application

3.2 East Ayrshire Council Roads &Transportation Service recommend refusal of the scheme as the road hierarchy for the new development fails to adhere to the Roads Guidelines. The scheme fails to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces for residential developments and also fails to include any traffic calming within the new development.

3.3 East Ayrshire Council Roads And Transportation Division Flooding Section - Section 208 of SPP indicates that land raising requires to be linked to compensatory storage which replaces the storage capacity of the floodplain, it goes on to say this must have as a minimum, a neutral effect on the storage or betterment of the effect on the floodplain storage. The applicant has not provided a suitably amended scheme or appropriate measures to compensate for the anticipated effects on the flood plain and therefore the Roads And Transportation Division Flooding Section must object to the scheme.

3.4 SEPA have indicated that they object in principle to this planning application on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and PAN 69. They state: Given the location of the proposed development within the undeveloped/sparsely developed functional floodplain we do not consider that it meets with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and our position is unlikely to change. We have a shared duty with Scottish Ministers and other responsible authorities under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 to reduce overall flood risk and promote sustainable flood risk management. The cornerstone of sustainable flood risk management is the avoidance of flood risk in the first instance. We recommend that alternative locations be considered.

In the event that the Planning Authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to this advice on flood risk the application must be notified to the Scottish Ministers as per The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009.

3.5 West Of Scotland Archaeology Service have indicated that there are several important sites in the landscape surrounding the area proposed for development. Many of these are of interest in their own right; others derive additional significance because of their possible historical associations with William Wallace. These include the possible location of the “Bickering Bush”, an incident involving the young William Wallace in the spring of 1292 or thereabouts, at a site by the confluence of the Kilmarnock Water with the River Irvine, near Riccarton and Caprington, where Wallace is reputed to have killed three members of a five strong patrol who had demanded his catch of fish.

The bush where he hid the bodies is reputed to have survived into the 19th Century, and its position was shown on the 1st Edition Ordnance Survey map of C.1860 at a point around 140m east of the proposed development area. In addition, the Riccarton area in general belonged to the Wallace Family from the late 12th Century, and the Castle of Riccarton is supposed to have been at Yardside, to the east of the proposed development area.

While neither of these sites fall within the Boundary of the area of the development , their presence, and that of other archaeological material recorded in the surrounding landscape highlights the potential for large scale ground disturbance associated with development to reveal buried traces of earlier landscapes associated with the recorded sites some of which could be contemporary with the historical character himself.

Given the potential for archaeology interests in the area it is recommended that if Planning Consent was given for the development that a suspensive condition be attached to any grant of Planning Consent addressing the need for appropriate Archaeology investigation of the site.

Any grant of Planning Permission could contain conditions addressing this matter.

3.6 Scottish Power submitted a holding objection to the proposal due to the large amount of overhead transmission lines and potentially underground equipment in the area. It should be noted that they also indicate that the developer may be able to resolve the issues raised and that they should contact Scottish Power to address the issues.

3.7 East Ayrshire Council Outdoor Services - no comments

3.8 East Ayrshire Council Education and Social Services indicate that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the 27 children who may derive from the 90 houses proposed in the development within Kirkstyle Primary and Kilmarnock Academy.

3.9 East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health; Scottish Natural Heritage; Scottish Wildlife Trust; Scottish Water; Scotland Gas Networks - no objection subject to conditions. Matters raised by these consultees can be attached to any planning consent.

4 REPRESENTATIONS

No representations have been received from members of the public in relation to this proposal.

5. ASSESSMENT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT PLAN

5.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of this application the development plans comprises of Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan and the East Ayrshire Local Plan.

Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan

5.2 The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, in terms of Schedule 5 within the plan, promotes a strategic expansion site within the Kilmarnock area. This is to meet the requirements of Policy COMM2, which states that the three Ayrshire Councils shall work together to facilitate the levels of development proposed within the strategic expansion locations identified within the schedule.

It is considered, the allocation of the site as a residential development site in the East Ayrshire Local Plan fulfils the requirements of the Structure Plan and is therefore consistent with the provisions of Policy COMM2 of the Approved Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan.

5.3 The application site lies within the settlement boundary of Kilmarnock in the Adopted East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010. Policy SD4 states that:

“The Council will direct all new development to those development opportunity sites specifically identified on the local plan maps as being suitable for the type of development proposed. Any development on sites not identified for the specific purposes envisaged will be assessed on their own merits against the provisions of all appropriate local plan policies.”

The application site is identified within the EALP as part of Development Opportunity Site 148H. The proposed residential development of this site is consistent with the provisions of Policy SD4.

5.4 Policy RES1 relates to the principle of the residential development and states:

“The Council will encourage and support the residential development of those Development Opportunity Sites identified for housing purposes on the individual local plan maps. The sites identified will be specifically reserved for residential development at the indicative capacities indicated, with development taking place in line with any phasing programme described in the plan, or such other programming as may be agreed for the sites in question.” The proposed development site is identified as a residential opportunity site (148H) within the local plan with an indicative capacity of 200 houses. The principal of residential development at this site is therefore acceptable and is in accordance with this element of RES1.

Volume 3 of the adopted local plan highlights that part of the development site 148H is liable to flooding and any proposals will require to take account of the flooding implications to the satisfaction of SEPA and the Council.

It is worth noting that the site has been included in this Local Plan with the caveat that it is in part subject to flooding and therefore requires to be designed accordingly. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment which indicates that an area containing approximately 40 houses would require to be raised to remove it from the functional flood plain. The flood risk report also indicates that the land raising could take place without significant detriment to the surrounding area.

However as the current layout of the site involves land raising in an area of land which currently floods in a 1 in 200 year flood event this proposal is contrary to the position set out in Scottish Planning Policy and SEPA and the Council’s Road Flooding section have objected to the proposal.

Policy Res 3 indicates that the development of identified residential sites is subject to compliance with certain criteria:

(i) Has no adverse impact on the surrounding natural and built environment and adjacent uses: (ii) Has no unacceptable transportation and infrastructure implications (iii) Is compatible with surrounding densities and housing types ;and (iv) Is in full compliance with the Council’s approved design guidance.

Developments that do not meet all of these criteria will not receive Council support.

The proposal involves land raising due to the low lying nature of part of the site and the potential of flooding. SEPA and Roads Flooding have objected to such land-raising proposals as they may result in detriment to adjoining uses due to displaced flood waters. Approximately 40 proposed houses are located within the area which is subject to flooding and requires to be land-raised. Therefore the proposal fails to accord with Criteria (i) of this policy.

As detailed above the Roads Division have objected to the road layout proposed by the applicant, therefore the scheme presents an unacceptable transportation issue and the proposals fails to accord with Criteria (ii) of this Policy.

It is considered that the type, density and design of the scheme are acceptable and therefore the Proposals are compliant with Criteria (iii) & (iv).

5.5 Policies RES 23 and RES 24 relate to the provision of private and public open space within the development.

It is considered that the scheme provides adequate private and public open space.

5.6 Policy RES29 relates to developer contributions and states: “Where a development of 4 or more houses, either on its own, or in association with existing developments, will place additional demands on community facilities or infrastructure that would necessitate new facilities or exacerbate deficiencies in existing provision, the council will require the developer to meet or contribute to the cost of providing or improving such infrastructure or facilities. Contributions will relate to the development concerned, including in nature, scale and kind. Where these cannot be secured by planning conditions or other appropriate means, the council will expect developers to complete a section 75 or other legal agreement. Contributions sought under this policy will be waived or reduced only in exceptional circumstances – for example, where a developer demonstrates that a development would have exceptional development costs, would bring particular economic, social or other benefits, or is ‘enabling development’ as defined in the plan.”

The Supplementary Planning Guidance on developer contributions indicates that for this development, the developer contribution will be as follows:

Kilmarnock Core Area £199 per unit Administration Fee £60 per unit Total per unit £259 per unit Based on the development comprising of the erection of 90 dwellings a development contribution of £23310 would be required.

The applicant had previously agreed to make this an upfront payment prior top the release of the Planning Consent.

Policy ENV 21 The Council will ensure that all new developments proposals : (i) Are free from significant flood risks from any source (ii) Do not themselves materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere (iii) Do not add to the area of land which requires protection by flood protection measures (iv) Do not take place on or affect the ability of functional flood plains to attenuate the affects of flooding by storing flood water.

Both SEPA and the Council Road’s Flooding Section have indicated that the development involves the removal of functional flood plain and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV 21

6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The principal material considerations relevant to the determination of the application are:

6.2 Scottish Planning Policy indicates that Planning Authorities must take the probability of flooding from all sources and the risks involved into account when preparing development plans and determining planning applications.

Consultation Responses

6.3 The majority of consultations have no objection to the proposals however both SEPA and the Council Road’s Flooding Section have indicated that the development involves the removal of functional flood plain and therefore the proposal is unacceptable. The Council Roads division also indicate that the proposed layout does not accord with the appropriate technical roads design.

6.4 Letters of Representation - None

Applicant Correspondence

6.5 The applicant has indicated ,among others things, that while SEPA are now objecting to the proposals they did not do so during the review of the Local Plan. In terms of the SEPA objection , which makes reference to the SPP it is apparent that whilst this document does seek to discourage development within existing floodplains it also recognises the need for this in certain cases and provides solutions for this situation. The solutions put forward by the applicant deal adequately with this issue.

6.6 Planning History

07/0022/FL Residential development refused 1/04/2008 01/0697/OL Residential Development withdrawn 15/12/2006 97/0517/OL Conversion of Farm steading approved 12/12/1997 07/1042/OL Residential Development. on adjacent site- undetermined

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994

6.7 At this stage, SNH has not indicated any potential need for a licence to disturb any habitat used by protected species and consequently the Planning Authority has reasonably considered the general requirement established under Regulation 3(4) to have regard to the provisions of the Habitats Directive, and in particular to the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of the Directive and Regulations 39 and 43 of the 1994 Regulations.

If the application was to be approved conditions could be attached to any grant of consent addressing ecological issues.

7. FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are financial and legal implications for the Council in the determination of this application as it has an ownership interest in part of the land subject to this application. 8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1 As is indicated in Section 5 of the report, the application is considered to be contrary to the development plan. Therefore, given the terms of Section 25 and Section 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the application should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 As is indicated in Section 6 above, there are material considerations relevant to this application however the points of raised by the applicant are not of sufficient weight to justify approval of the application contrary to the Development Plan.

9. RECOMMENDATION

9.1 It is recommended that the Planning Application be refused for the reason on the attached sheet.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTICE

Alan Neish Head of Planning and Economic Development

CSI/RH 13/01/2012

FV/DMCD

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Application Forms, Plans and Supporting Information. 2. Statutory Notices/Certificates. 3. Consultation Responses. 4. Scottish Planning Policy 5. Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan 6. Adopted East Ayrshire Local Plan. Implementation Officer: David McDowall

Anyone wishing to inspect the above papers please contact Craig Iles 01563 576772

Reason for Refusal

1 The Proposal fails to accord with Policy RES 3 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the development of the Proposal on an area of land which is liable to flooding will have an adverse impact on the surrounding natural and built environment and the adjacent uses.

2 The Proposal fails to accord with Policy RES 3 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the proposal fails to accord with the Roads Division design criteria and therefore will have unacceptable transportation and infrastructure implications.

3 The Proposal fails to accord with Policy ENV 21 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan as the scheme involves the removal of functional flood plain without appropriate compensatory flood storage.