DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL Development Management List of Delegated Decisions - 30th November 2018
The following decisions will be issued under delegated powers unless any Member requests that an application is reported to the Development Management Committee for determination. Such requests must be made on the attached form, which should be completed and sent for the attention of the Development Management Manager to [email protected] no later than 12 Noon, 7 days from the date of this list.
Ref. No.: 0996/H/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Extension to house Address: 49 Maukeshill Court,Livingston Village, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7AX (Grid Ref: 303994,666937) Applicant: Mr S Morrison Type: Local Application
Ward: Livingston North Case Officer: Thomas Cochrane Summary of Representations
None
Officers report
The dwelling is located at the entrance of a housing estate which were built as bungalows. It is one of a row of four properties, three of which are still single storey; the application property had its roof raised in 1987, without planning permission, and consequently is a two storey house, with the appearance of a chalet villa, with two upstairs bedrooms contained within the roof.
The property is finished in white render and retains its original front elevation of two windows and an entrance door; there is an additional upstairs window to the front and back which was added when the roof was raised. The properties in Maukeshill Court are visually similar, and all have a small single detached garage to the west, enhancing the visual continuity of the streetscene. It is proposed to extend the property by integrating the garage and adding further accommodation to the upper floor. This would have a noticeable impact on the streetscene at the entrance to the estate. The visual continuity of the row of four houses would be disturbed.
It is considered that the two storey side extension proposed would be a discordant element and would look out of place. It would cause the property to dominate the street scene, and there is a danger of a precedent being set which could result in a significant cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the estate. This would be contrary to the West Lothian Local Development plan DES 1 which states that development should have no significant impact on adjacent buildings or streetscape. This is also contrary to supplementary planning guidance for House Extension and Design which states that the property should not dominate neighbouring property and that side extensions should not detract from the overall streetscene. For the reasons noted this application is recommended refused.
Page 1 of 3 DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL Development Management List of Delegated Decisions - 14th December 2018
The following decisions will be issued under delegated powers unless any Member requests that an application is reported to the Development Management Committee for determination. Such requests must be made on the attached form, which should be completed and sent for the attention of the Development Management Manager to [email protected] no later than 12 Noon, 7 days from the date of this list.
Ref. No.: 0819/A/18 Recommendation: Refuse Advertisement Consent Proposal: Display of 2 non-illuminated hoarding signs (in retrospect) Address: St Davids Church,George Street, Bathgate, West Lothian, EH48 1PH (Grid Ref: 297435,668870) Applicant: Mr Andrew Henderson Type: Other Bathgate Cinema Ward: Bathgate Case Officer: Mahlon Fautua Summary of Representations
None
Officers report
The signs subject of this application consist of a free standing hoarding sign and another on the side of the former church, which is a category B listed building. The position and size of the signs are such that they would have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance and setting of the listed building and on the visual amenity of the streetscene, to the detriment of the environmental quality of Bathgate town centre.
It is therefore recommended that the application is refused
Page 1 of 4 Ref. No.: 0938/FUL/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Change of use from public open space to garden ground Address: 54 Wester Bankton,Murieston, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 9DY (Grid Ref: 306053,665473) Applicant: Ms Brenda Riva Type: Local Application
Ward: Livingston South Case Officer: Claire Johnston Summary of Representations
None
Officers report
The applicant has appropriated and fenced off a public footpath and adjoining ground, and erected a two metre high fence and shed. The path has been re-routed around the new fence. The development represents an unneccessary incursion into an area of public woodland and open space. It creates an awkward routing for the footpath, forming hidden corners which could give rise to security concerns. The land which has been appropriated is owned by West Lothian Council.
The proposal, if supported, would set an undesirable precedent for other neighbours to extend into what is a narrow open space corridor, to the detriment of the overall amenity of the corridor and functionality of the footpath and surrounding network.
The fence is out of keeping with the scale and character of other fences in the area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.
The development is therefore contrary to policies DES1 (Design Principles), ENV10 (protection of Urban Woodland) and ENV21 (Protection of formal and informal open space) of the West Lothian Local Development Plan.
Refusal and appropriate enforcement action is therefore recommended.
Page 2 of 4 Ref. No.: 1087/A/18 Recommendation: Refuse Advertisement Consent Proposal: Display of fascia sign (in retrospect) Address: Park Farm,Linlithgow, West Lothian, EH49 6QY, (Grid Ref: 302891,677089) Applicant: Mr Neil Wattie Type: Other Sellars Agricultral Ltd Ward: Linlithgow Case Officer: Claire Johnston Summary of Representations
None
Officers report
Permission is sought for the display of a high level fascia sign on a barn at Park Farm, Linlithgow. The sign wold be dis[played at a high level, above two of the doors to the barn.
It is considered that the proposed sign is unacceptable in its design, scale and positioning on the premises, and that it is not in keeping with the rural location and surrounding pattern of development, contrary to policy DES1 of the Local Development Plan.
If the application were to be approved this could also set an undesirable precedent, therefore it is recommended for refusal.
Page 3 of 4 DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL Development Management List of Delegated Decisions - 21st December 2018
The following decisions will be issued under delegated powers unless any Member requests that an application is reported to the Development Management Committee for determination. Such requests must be made on the attached form, which should be completed and sent for the attention of the Development Management Manager to [email protected] no later than 12 Noon, 7 days from the date of this list.
Ref. No.: 1053/H/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Two storey extension to house Address: 34 Albyn Drive,Murieston, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 9JN (Grid Ref: 305109,664228) Applicant: Mr & Mrs William & Pauline McCourt Type: Local Application
Ward: Livingston South Case Officer: Thomas Cochrane Summary of Representations
No representations received.
Officers report
A two storey side extension is proposed to a two storey detached house on a corner plot. The front elevation has a small projection and is mostly render with brick highlights with a ramped path to the front door which is covered by a brick canopy. The west elevation looks onto the street and open curtilage which belongs to the property. This elevation also has a chimney. A garage is located to the rear of the property along with a wall which divides the rear and side garden. The remaining elevation faces into the neighbouring property. A desktop survey shows that high hedges previously enclosed the curtilage of the property to the west (google street view 2012). These have been removed and the area to the side of the house (the site of the proposed extension) is now open and grassed and has the appearance of open space, although the applicant has demonstrated that he owns the land. A previous application, 0694/H/18, was withdrawn following advice to the agent that it was being considered for refusal. The amended plans comply better with council guidance due to the extension being made subsidiary to the principal dwelling by reducing its ridge height. Although this proposal represents an improvement over the previous application, it still fails to satisfy policy DES 1 of the West Lothian Local Development Plan, as the two storey extension would project beyond the existing gable of the building, which taken with the rear garden wall and garage of the application property, and the adjacent property, constitutes the building line, to the detriment of visual amenity. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission is refused.
Page 1 of 6 Ref. No.: 1075/FUL/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Erection of a house and associated works including the formation of an access Address: 5 Pardovan Holding,Philpstoun, Linlithgow, West Lothian, EH49 6QZ (Grid Ref: 303722,676997) Applicant: Mr & Mrs Christopher & Lesley Nock Type: Local Application
Ward: Linlithgow Case Officer: Matthew Watson Summary of Representations
Two representations:
- The owners have recently had an application for two properties approved and have lodged an application for a third. Together with existing properties (the nursery building and home dwelling), this will result in the rural area potentially having five properties (none of which are agriculturallybased) along a strip of approximately 152 metres. This is in direct contrast with all the other buildings in the area, many of which are still used for rural business.
- This development, together with owner's recent removal of the hedge bordering the road west of the property and the proposed altering of the visibility splays, means that the environment/visual amenity of the area has been and will be significantly altered. Noted that the hedge was removed in spring / summer, when nesting birds/ wildlife are at their height.
- Unsustainable; no access to public transport or footpaths, which does not accord with Paragraph 46 of Scottish Planning Policy, which looks to ensure development can link different means of travel and is well connected beyond the site boundary.
- The double storey design does not fit in with Pardovan properties, which are one level, apart from the applicant's current dwelling. The house (and approved houses) are disproportionally large compared to all other dwellings in the area.
- The area around Pardovan Holdings is rare in Scotland, with the land being sold by the Department of Agriculture in the 1940s to provide affordable small holdings for those who weren't landed gentry, and who wanted to provide for themselves a sustainable, agricultural living. The historical, economic and social importance of these holdings should not be underestimated. Existing holdings still offer this provision (see Narrow Boat Farm).
- Precedent: rare areas like Pardovan should be protected, rather than being destroyed.
- Development in the countryside should comply with the applicable legislation and guidance.
- The application property is outwith the envelope of Philpstoun village, and contravenes West Lothian planning guidance.
- The proposed dwelling is large, with a number of north facing roof level windows and does not mirror any other properties in the locality other than the existing Oakwell dwelling.
- This application, if approved, would result in five properties on the site. The planned additional development of this area and close proximity of the Page 3 of 6 proposed properties contrasts significantly with the existing neighbouring properties.
Officers report
The application site is a brownfield site. Policy ENV 2 of the LDP states housing development in the countryside can be permitted where 'the proposal provides for the restoration of a brownfield site where there is no realistic prospect of it being returned to agriculture or woodland use and the site has no significant natural heritage value in its current condition'. The Supplementary Guidance (SG) on Development Countryside provides further guidance on the interpretation of this policy criteria.
Paragraph 34 of the SG states 'the underlying justification for making an exception to general planning policy is to secure the removal of inappropriate buildings and to improve the visual and environmental amenity of the countryside'. Paragraph 38 gives nine requirements that need to be demonstrated.
It is acknowledged that the site is no longer used for its original purpose, however, the site is not visually or environmentally intrusive; it has not been significantly degraded by a former activity to a point that it cannot be re-used; nor has it been demonstrated the building is beyond economic repair and retention. There will not be significant environmental, visual and/or community through redevelopment. The building is functional but is not visually intrusive within its context.
With the two new build houses granted in the adjacent plots to the application site there is a cumulative erosion of the countryside at this location, which the proposed development would further exacerbate.
Overall, the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV 2 of the LDP and the SG on Development in the Countryside as the proposal does not remove an inappropriate building from the countryside, which is the intention behind the policies.
It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused.
Page 4 of 6 Ref. No.: 1076/H/18 Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission Proposal: Formation of dormers and re-roofing of house Address: Hillcroft,5 Parkhead Road, Linlithgow, West Lothian, EH49 7BS (Grid Ref: 299578,677547) Applicant: Mr & Mrs H Bahia Type: Local Application
Ward: Linlithgow Case Officer: Thomas Cochrane Summary of Representations
Seven representations were received, four in favour and three against. The objections concern privacy concerns, largely about the proposed balcony.
Officers report
The application is for a rear dormer which will increase the property by two bedrooms, a dressing room and shower along with storage. The original drawing that was submitted included a large balcony. This has been removed due to concerns of the planning department with regards to overlooking and privacy of neighbours. Several of the neighbouring properties already have dormer windows which over look the loch. The addition of a dormer on to this property will not cause detriment of residential or visual amenity.
Page 5 of 6
DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL Development Management List of Delegated Decisions - 28th December 2018
The following decisions will be issued under delegated powers unless any Member requests that an application is reported to the Development Management Committee for determination. Such requests must be made on the attached form, which should be completed and sent for the attention of the Development Management Manager to [email protected] no later than 12 Noon, 7 days from the date of this list.
Ref. No.: 1050/H/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Formation of driveway Address: 2 East Main Street,Blackburn, Bathgate, West Lothian, EH47 7QU (Grid Ref: 298523,665393) Applicant: Mr D McIntosh Type: Local Application
Ward: Whitburn & Blackburn Case Officer: Thomas Cochrane Summary of Representations
No public representations were received. One objection from Transportation recommending refusal due to the proposed access being too close to the signalised junction and does not provide sufficient forwards stopping distance.
Officers report
The location of a gate and driveway entrance at this location would cause significant risk to road and pedestrian safety at what is already a busy junction. The objection from roads and transportation reinforces this judgment.
Page 1 of 2
Ref. No.: 1070/FUL/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Change of use from warehouse/office (class 6/4) to fitness studio (class 11) Address: Forthview Court,1 , 23 Oakbank Park Way, Livingston, West Lothian (Grid Ref: 307396,665869) Applicant: Mr Graeme McMillan Type: Local Application Win Fitness Limited Ward: East Livingston & East Calder Case Officer: Matthew Watson Summary of Representations
No representations received.
Officers report
The application proposes a change of use from Class 4/6 to Class 11. The unit is located at the north east end of the Oakbank Park industrial estate in a terrace of three units. No physical alterations are proposed to the unit. Policy EMP 1 sets out the criteria for alternative uses in employment areas.
The proposal will not fragment a larger industrial area or restrict the range of uses that can be carried out lawfully by nearby businesses. The reporter in the LDP examination highlighted an oversupply of employment and the proposal would not result in a shortfall in the overall supply of employment land. The proposal complies with EMP 1 (e), (g) and (h).
EMP 1 (f) states it needs to 'be satisfactorily demonstrated that there is no reasonable or realistic demand for the retention of the existing premises or sites for use classes 4, 5 and 6. Prospective developers will be required to evidence their attempts to secure a continued employment-generating use and in particular that they have actively marketed the premises or site over a sustained period'.
The unit in question has not been market tested for Class 4, 5 and 6 uses. It has therefore not been satisfactorily demonstrated that there is no realistic demand for retention of the premises for Class 4, 5 or 6 and the unit has not been marketed for a sustained period of time. The proposal is contrary to EMP 1 (f).
EMP 1 (i) states proposals for alternative uses in employment areas should 'have no unacceptable traffic, amenity or environmental impact and the site is accessible, or can be made accessible by public transport and footway connections to the surrounding area'.
The proposal will not cause unacceptable traffic, amenity or environmental impacts. Transportation and environmental health have both raised no objections to the application. However, the site is only easily accessible by private car. Although there are bus stops on the A71 south east of the Oakbank roundabout, there is no direct footway connection to the unit and someone accessing the site by foot would have to walk all the way through the industrial estate. The propsal is contrary to EMP 1 (i).
Overall, the proposal is contrary to Policy EMP 1 criteria (f) and (i). It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused.
Page 2 of 2
DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL Development Management List of Delegated Decisions - 11th January 2019
The following decisions will be issued under delegated powers unless any Member requests that an application is reported to the Development Management Committee for determination. Such requests must be made on the attached form, which should be completed and sent for the attention of the Development Management Manager to [email protected] no later than 12 Noon, 7 days from the date of this list.
Ref. No.: LIVE/0442/P/17 Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission in Principle Proposal: Planning permission in principle for residential development (Grid Ref: 302928, 664035) Address: Polbeth Harwood Parish Church, Chapelton Terrace, Polbeth, EH55 8SE,, , , (Grid Ref: ,) Applicant: Type: Other Church Of Scotland General Trustees Ward: Fauldhouse & The Breich Valley Case Officer: Mahlon Fautua Summary of Representations
None
Officers report
Planning permission is sought for a residential development on vacant land adjacent to Polbeth Harwood Parish Church at Chapelton Terrace, Polbeth. The application is for permission in principle although an indicative site plan shows a development of seven terraced houses with gardens. The site is a windfall site in the LDP and thus the principle of the development is supported.
However the applicant has not agreed to the developer contributions required to support the development, and therefore the development cannot be supported on infrastructural grounds. The proposal is thus contrary to LDP policy INF 1 (Infrastructure Provision and Developer Obligations).
Therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
Page 1 of 7 Ref. No.: 0118/FUL/18 Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission Proposal: Formation of hardstanding, earth bund, fencing and erection of gatehouse for commercial storage (in retrospect) Address: Land Adjacent To A705 At Redmill Ind. Est,Redmill, East, Whitburn, , (Grid Ref: 305280,667171) Applicant: Mr James Callaghan Type: Local Application
Ward: Whitburn & Blackburn Case Officer: Mahlon Fautua Summary of Representations
Eight letters, seven objecting and one neutral. Grounds of objection:
- Road Safety - Residential Amenity - Impact on Wildlife - Works carried out without permission
Officers report
The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the formation of hardstanding, an earth bund, fencing and erection of a gatehouse for commercial storage. The works have already been completed and the application has been submitted following enforcement action.
The site is allocated in the LDP for employment use and as such the proposed development is in accordance and therefore accepted in principle. The development retains the protected woodland which provides a natural buffer to the north and east.
Therefore it is recommended that the application is granted subject to conditions.
Page 2 of 7 Ref. No.: 0267/FUL/18 Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission Proposal: Erection of 15 houses with associated works (as varied to omit 18 flats) Address: Land At Redhouse Road,Seafield, West Lothian, , (Grid Ref: 300751,666257) Applicant: Mr Norman Ritchie Type: Local Application Atholl Homes Ward: Whitburn & Blackburn Case Officer: Mahlon Fautua Summary of Representations
11 objections (submitted in respect of the original proposal) -
-unsightly -not in keeping with the village - Increase in traffic - Noise and loss of privacy - The proposed development would be overbearing and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with the existing housing. - Pressure on local services
After the application re-notified following the removal of the flats, 2 of the above objections were withdrawn
Officers report
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 15 houses; following discussion the applicant has revised the proposal from the original, which was for 16 houses and two blocks of nine flatted dwellings. The site is a windfall site in the LDP and thus the principle of the development is supported. The proposal largely satisfies the criteria in the Residential Development Guide.
It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions and the securing of the relevant developer contributions
Page 3 of 7 Ref. No.: 1078/FUL/18 Recommendation: Refuse Permission Proposal: Part change of use of agricultural building to office (class 4) Address: Land West Of Priors Grange,Torphichen, Bathgate, EH48 4QN, (Grid Ref: 305280,667171) Applicant: Mr David Ireland Type: Local Application
Ward: Bathgate Case Officer: Mahlon Fautua Summary of Representations
None
Officers report
Planning permission is sought for the use of part of the mezzanine of a storage barn as office space. Two offices, a WC and separate shower, and a staff kitchen area are proposed. The supporting information submitted suggests that five people would work in the office space. The barn is located on the far edge of a field adjacent to the settlement boundary.
A class 4 office in this location would be contrary to the LDP, as no locational justification has been offered and it has not been demonstrated that the office is intended for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, countryside recreation or tourism or other rural business use. It is noted that only recently the shed was built under permitted development rights for agricultural use.
It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused as the proposal is contrary to LDP policies, DES1 (Design Principles), EMP3 (Employment development outwith settlement boundaries) and ENV3 (Other development in the countryside).
Page 4 of 7 Ref. No.: 1088/H/18 Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission Proposal: Two storey extension to house Address: 5 Crosshill Drive,Bathgate, West Lothian, EH48 1DQ, (Grid Ref: 298270,668585) Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Duffin Type: Local Application
Ward: Bathgate Case Officer: Thomas Cochrane Summary of Representations
One objection- - Privacy - Impact on sunlight
Officers report
This semi-detached property occupies a prominent position with commanding views over Bathgate to the Pentland hills. It is proposed to extend the side of the property by two storeys to create an extension to the kitchen and a shower room on the ground floor and a bedroom on the upper floor. The side elevation will have four windows, three on the upper level which have, following discussion, been reduced in size to address a privacy issue relating to the neighbour's front garden. Due to the location of the proposed extension, there will be no detriment to the neighbours' residential or visual amenity. The proposals will not be detrimental to the appearance to the main dwelling. Acordingly, it is recommended that planning permission is granted.
Page 5 of 7 Ref. No.: 1152/H/18 Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission Proposal: Erection of decking (in retrospect) Address: 51 Braekirk Gardens,Kirknewton, West Lothian, EH27 8BP, (Grid Ref: 310779,667202) Applicant: Mr D Carnachan Type: Local Application
Ward: East Livingston & East Calder Case Officer: Thomas Cochrane Summary of Representations
One objection
- Privacy
Officers report
This property is a newly built semi-detached cottage which is situated on a sloping site. The decking is proposed at the rear of the property; because of the sloping site the highest part of the deck will be 800mm above the ground. The rear garden is surrounded by 2m fencing to the east and west and a 1.2m fence to the north. There is one objection on the grounds of privacy, which can be mitigated through a condition requiring the extension of a fence on the eastern boundary of the property. Otherwise, there is no impact on the visual or residential amenity of the neighbouring properties and therefore it is recommendation that planning permission is granted, subject to the aforementioned condition.
Page 6 of 7