Relocation of Landscape Business at Edenmill Farm, Blanefield, G63 9Ax - Mr M Gibson - 10/00027/Ful

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM 6 ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL PLANNING, REGULATION & WASTE

29 JUNE 2010 NOT EXEMPT

RELOCATION OF LANDSCAPE BUSINESS AT EDENMILL FARM, BLANEFIELD, G63 9AX - MR M GIBSON - 10/00027/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 Members are reminded that this Application was presented to the Planning Panel on the 13 of April (Appendix A). The decision taken at that time was to defer the Application to allow further discussions to take place between the Applicant and the Council’s Transportation Team in an attempt to reach a solution to the roads issues.

2 RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 To refuse this Planning Application subject to the following reasons:

a) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy ED7 part 5 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 as the proposal cannot be easily and safely accessed from the main road network due to the poor visibility at the junction and insufficient information has been submitted demonstrating that it will have a negligible traffic impact.

b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy E7 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 as the proposal cannot be easily and safely accessed from the main road network due to the poor visibility at the junction and insufficient information has been submitted demonstrating that it will have a negligible traffic impact.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

The Proposal

3.2 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

Previous History

3.3 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

Development Plan Policy

3.4 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

Assessment

3.5 Discussions have taken place with the Applicant and two new access points were identified to allow safe access/egress into the Applicant’s site. These new access points would remove the Transportation Service’s objection to the Application. The Applicant has confirmed, however, that he cannot gain control of the land to form these access points.

3.6 Also, during the meeting the Applicant was asked to provide a more detailed report on the number of vehicles that would be using the existing access in a bid to demonstrate that this proposal will not increase the number of vehicles accessing and egressing the access. This report (Appendix B) has been assessed by the Transportation Service and they have confirmed that it still confirms that this business will increase the site access usage and for this reason they still object to the application.

3.7 The Applicant does not own the land at the access in order to make any roads improvements. In particular, there is a tree outwith his control and the Council’s control that, along with the topography of the road, restricts visibility.

3.8 For these reasons the Application is still recommended for refusal for the reasons set out at paragraph 2.1 of this report.

Objections

3.9 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) No Corporate/Service Plan No Existing Policy or Strategy No Risk No Resource Implications Financial No People No Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

Policy Implications

4.1 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

Resource Implications

4.2 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

Consultations

4.3 See previous report, attached as Appendix A.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 10/00027/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/SearchResult.asp?AppNumber=10/00027/ FUL

Author(s) Name Designation Tel No/Extension

Peter McKechnie Planning Officer 01786 443143

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Planning, Regulation and Waste

Date 21 June 2010 Reference 10/00027/FUL

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

APPENDIX A

THIS REPORT RELATES STIRLING COUNCIL TO ITEM ON THE AGENDA

PLANNING PANEL PLANNING REGULATION & WASTE

13 APRIL 2010 NOT EXEMPT

RELOCATION OF LANDSCAPE BUSINESS AT EDENMILL FARM, BLANEFIELD, G63 9AX - MR M GIBSON - 10/00027/FUL

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This application is a resubmission of application: Relocation of landscape business at Edenmill Farm, Blanefield reference number S/08/00824/PPP (Appendix 1). That application also went to a site visit, which took place on 5 October 2009. This application is for the same proposal: The relocation of the applicant’s landscape business (machinery, transport and administration) to Edenmill Farm, which is currently located at Balmore Industrial Estate, Glasgow. Edenmill Farm is the primary source of materials as the existing polytunnels are used to grow the plants. The applicant has provided further information with this resubmission to demonstrate that by moving the business to this location it will reduce traffic movements at the junction.

1.2 The application is acceptable in planning terms, as the business will use the existing buildings at the site. Stirling Councils Roads, Transport and Open Space are objecting to the application on the grounds it will increase traffic movements at the substandard junction. The junction visibility is very poor due to the topography of the road. The applicant is unable to make appropriate junction improvements and has failed to demonstrate that this proposal will not increase traffic movements at the junction. The applicant has attempted to demonstrate that this consolidation will reduce movements currently taking place at the junction, however he has failed to quantify this. Stirling Councils Roads, Transport and Open Space still object to the application, as having the business at this site will increase movements and the applicant has failed to demonstrate otherwise. For this reason alone the application is recommended for refusal.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

2 RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 To refuse this planning application for the following reasons:

(a) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy ED7 part 5 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 as the proposal cannot be easily and safely accessed from the main road network due to the poor visibility at the junction and insufficient information has been submitted demonstrating that it will a negligible traffic impact.

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to Policy E7 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 as the proposal cannot be easily and safely accessed from the main road network due to the poor visibility at the junction and insufficient information has been submitted demonstrating that it will a negligible traffic impact.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

The Site

3.1 The proposal is located on a private access track off the south side of the A809, Drymen to Bearsden Road at Low Auchengillan approx 5 miles from Strathblane, on land forming part of the Auchineden Estate. The site chosen for the landscape business is within the existing yard complex utilising the existing buildings. The existing buildings are used to accommodate machinery in connection with the Christmas tree operations.

The Proposal

3.2 The proposal involves the relocation of the applicants landscaping business from Balmore Industrial Estate to this site at Edenmill Farm. The proposal will utilise the existing buildings at the site and will access the main A809 using the existing access at the end of the single-track road.

Previous History

3.3 Planning was refused in 2002 for Erection of polytunnels, change of use from riding school/livery to agriculture, horticulture and storage and distribution. The reasons for refusal are attached as Appendix 2. Some of these works have now been carried out through permitted development rights, as this application was not necessary for the polytunnels. The Decision Notice is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

3.4 A further application was submitted in 2008 S/08/00824/PPP. This application was also refused in October last year. The decision notice is attached as Appendix 3 to this report.

Development Plan Policy

3.5 The proposal is for a rural enterprise outwith a rural centre therefore Policies ED7 AND E7 of the Adopted Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) August 2007 applies.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

3.6 “Policy ED7 supports rural enterprise that is of a scale and nature consistent with the pattern of existing development, the landscape character and the natural heritage. It supports developments, which have a need for a countryside location and/or demonstrate a benefit to the rural economy, which would not otherwise be achieved within the existing settlement pattern or rural activity area. These developments should be easily and safely accessed from the main road network…”

3.7 “Policy E7 also supports development proposals falling within the Countryside which are essential to the proper functioning of the primary rural activities, or other uses which can be shown to have an overriding need for a countryside location. Such developments will be subject to further assessment in relation to traffic generation and access…”

Assessment

3.8 The main planning issues relating to the consideration of this Application are whether the proposal will have a negligible impact upon the existing access and therefore the concerns over the poor visibility can be set aside or improvements sought to help improve the junction. There are no planning reasons for refusal of this Application.

3.9 Currently from Edenmill Mr Gibson runs a farm shop and Christmas tree enterprise. These are accessed from a single-track road, which runs out and meets with the main A809, which is a fast flowing road. The access has restricted visibility due to the topography of the road on the northern side, which greatly reduces visibility.

3.10 The A809 at this access is a fast section of classified unlit de restricted distributor road. At the access location the roads vertical alignment forms a crest, which restricts visibility for both vehicles leaving the access and for vehicles travelling southeast on the A809. It is not desirable to increase right hand turning manoeuvres at a location where vehicle speeds can be excessive, where overtaking opportunities are afforded and full forward visibility sightlines cannot be achieved. For this reason, the proposal fails the terms of the policies quoted above.

3.11 The Applicant has submitted a statement with the Application (Appendix 4), which claims that the consolidation of the landscape business at this location will reduce the daily trips between Balmore/Edenmill/Balmore. These trips will no longer be required. The statistical evidence submitted with this statement does not clearly set out the exact number of trips it will reduce by, it is unclear and makes a guess at the amount of reduction. Therefore it is not conclusive to allow Stirling Councils Roads, Transport and Open Space to remove their objection. In fact they disagree with the findings.

3.12 Stirling Councils Roads, Transport and Open space have responded to this statement. They have offered the following explanation in support of their objection. The original application site was a low-key farm operation generating low levels of vehicular movements. This operation has expanded to include a farm shop and Christmas tree operations with associated polytunnels. The majority of these developments did not require planning permission therefore no consultation was made to Roads, Transport and open space. When planning applications have been submitted the service has consistently highlighted concerns with respect to road safety.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

3.13 They do not consider that consolidating the business at this location will reduce current traffic movements at the junction. They consider that moving the business to Edenmill will increase traffic movements at the junction: “In addition to the 17 vehicles operating out of Balmore Industrial Estate there would be a significant increase in the number of vehicle movements generated by the relocation of the plant and machinery plus the increase generated by the additional daily arrival and departure of all the staff associated with the business”.

3.14 These problems at the access have been fully investigated and due to a number of factors at the road junction there are no feasible road safety measures or traffic management solutions available to mitigate these road safety concerns. An alternative access acceptable to Roads, Transport and Open Space was found. (location approx 280m to the north of the existing access) The applicant to date has not pursued this recommendation.

3.15 Consequently, as has been highlighted above, the proposal is considered contrary to the established Development Plan policies.

Objections

3.16 Two letters of representation have been received detailing the following:

(a) These letters have raised concerns regarding the dangerous junction and increased traffic use.

(b) This application is retrospective as the landscaping business is currently being run from Edenmill.

(c) A food festival was held at the site recently and the police had to be present at the junction to ensure that visitors were safe.

(d) Mark Gibson no longer owns this business as it has been bought over by the Green Belt Company.

(e) It is difficult to accept that there are any changed circumstances since the refusal to grant planning permission for the landscape business in 2002 where the principal reason for refusal was road junction safety.

(f) The applicant has completely ignored Stirling Council’s decision for over 8 years and has continued to grow his landscaping business from the site despite the previous refusal (for storage of vehicles, equipment and materials associated with his landscaping business, MG Contracting Ref: S/02/00702/DET).

(g) Food Festival: I saw the police present for part of the day and a Police Accident sign put in place to slow traffic because they felt there was a requirement for it to be in place. Also the Edenmill Farm shop had staff marshalling the traffic.

(h) The access road is narrow and single-track along its whole length with 3 sharp 90-degree corners and is in constant need of repair due to the existing traffic. The vehicles using the access road are up to 8 wheelers and articulated HGVs for which this access road is totally unsuitable.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

(i) The applicant cannot improve the farm access road between the A809 and the short entrance road to Edenmill Farm since the Auchineden Estate owns it. Neither can he provide passing places on the farm access road. Neither can he materially improve the A809 junction because Sir Simon Dunning, Lower Auchengillan owner has stated in a letter to Stirling Planning (Ref: S/02/00702/DET).

(j) The 50 jobs are in the landscape business owned by Greenbelt that is a large company, large enough to finance the relocation of the business or to fund an alternative access.

(k) There will be a significant increase in traffic due to the recent 7 fold increase in the number of polytunnels producing for wholesale.

(l) Who then owns the vans and other vehicles (in excess of 10) that have been based at Edenmill Farm for a number of years? The vans leave the premises weekday mornings and return in evening; they are stored overnight and all weekend at Edenmill Farm

(m) The site is a small part of the original 1800’s Auchineden farm that has not been in operation since the 1930’s. The original buildings form 4 private residences. The proposals have a serious detrimental affect upon the existing residential amenity of the 4 private residences.

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications

4.1 The application is contrary to the Development Plan.

Resource Implications

4.2 None.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

Consultations

4.3 Roads, Transport & Open Space: Environment Services Transport Development: The site is located on a private track off the south side of the A809, Drymen to Bearsden Road at Low Auchengillan. The track is a single- track road of approx 4m in width with passing places serving various rural properties including the Burncrooks Water Treatment Works.

The A809 in the vicinity of the site access is a fast section of classified unlit de-restricted distributor road of which a main feature is to provide for safe and expeditious movement of through traffic. A prime objective of the Roads Authority is to limit the number of direct accesses and/or increased use of any existing accesses onto such roads. At this location the roads vertical alignment forms a crest, which restricts visibility for both vehicles leaving the access and for vehicles travelling southeast on the A809.

It is not desirable to increase right hand turning manoeuvres at a location where vehicle speeds can be excessive, where overtaking opportunities are afforded and full forward visibility sightlines cannot be achieved. Additional right hand turning at this location could lead to vehicular conflict as a result of a right hand signal being mistaken for an overtaking manoeuvre, drivers attempting to overtake a vehicle which is slowing down behind an obscured turning vehicle.

Direct vehicular access onto a de-restricted distributor road is contrary to Roads Authority's principle of the application of proper road hierarchy and increased use of the existing access is not welcomed. Access to the proposed development should be via a suitable number of steps down through the roads hierarchy, which should be applied consistently so as to ensure that drivers are not faced with steps in hierarchy which are too great to cope with safely. The connection of these roads is not good road hierarchy practise and any increased use should not be encouraged.

The Applicant proposes to bring all aspects of the landscaping business to Edenmill Farm and his Agent’s supporting letter indicates that this will in fact result in a de-intensification of traffic to and from the site at Edenmill Farm over current use. Given the above, Roads Service continue to recommend against consent being granted until such time as conclusive evidence of traffic generation is available to enable detailed consideration of the application

4.4 Strathblane Community Council: We agreed that our opposition to this application remains very strong and based on serious planning grounds, detailed below.

By a copy of this email, we are asking our elected members to ensure that this application is not decided without SCC having an opportunity to be heard.

Detailed Observations

In application 08/00824/OUT the relocation of the landscaping business was refused on traffic grounds. Specifically, the nature of the single-track access road and its junction onto the busy A809 road near a blind summit render the access dangerous already, and unsuitable for increased traffic. Similar applications have been refused in the past.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

10/00027/FUL is a resubmission of 08/00824, in which new evidence has been filed. With regard to the Landscape Business, the status quo is (or is supposed to be) that a nursery for plants operates on site. The landscaping business itself is meant to be based elsewhere. The landscaping business is presumably MG Contracting Ltd, a subsidiary of the larger concern Greenbelt Holdings, of which the applicant Mark Gibson is founder and Managing Director. See www.mgcontracting.co.uk.

The applicant contends that the need for vehicles to visit the site to pick up plants under current arrangements results in more traffic on the access road than would be the case, if the vehicles were based there. The same point was fully argued in the refused application 08/00824/PPP, and we do not see that the new application should change that decision.

In the new application, a list of vehicles and a log of vehicle movements are presented which allegedly bolster the applicant's proposition.

We have reviewed the new information and note firstly that the applicant has made no attempt to explain, summarise or analyse what the detailed log is supposed to show.

A list of vehicles is shown which, allegedly, visit the site every day to pick up raw materials and which, allegedly would not need to move from the site. If the vans are based on site, workers will have to make their own vehicle movements to reach the vans in the morning & go home at night. There is no certainty that the traffic movements will decrease on this score, if the proposal is allowed.

No mention is made of trailers and equipment besides the vans, which for a substantial landscaping business. We refer for example to earth moving equipment, gardening machinery etc which are not necessarily required for the nursery activities. If there were to be based on site and trafficked in and out each day, surely that would result in an increase of traffic.

The applicant claims that 'all raw materials' for the existing landscaping business come from the Edenmill site. The only activities permitted on the site are horticultural/forestry activities falling within the definition of agriculture. In other words, the only raw materials that should be accessed at the site are plants and materials required for the growing of those plants at the nursery. A landscaping business on the scale of this one surely employs a much wider range of raw materials, such as soils, aggregates, building and paving materials. None of these should be on site at present, but granting the proposal could allow any and all of them to be delivered, stored and deployed from the site. This would indicate an increase of traffic, including HGV deliveries.

The number of vehicle movements and the volumes of shrubs distributed from the site, as illustrated in the log, is of course impressive and a credit to the success of the applicant's nursery and landscaping businesses. However, as best we can decipher it, the log appears to show that plants are uplifted from the site at most by a few vehicles, a few times each week. Even if the vans and other equipment were working at full capacity, it makes sense that each team/vehicle has many other tasks to perform in a typical project, besides ferrying plants. Before shrubs etc are planted on a typical job, it stands to reason that there have been hours or days of preparatory work.

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

The 50 employees are all alleged to live near Edenmill, which is an isolated steading. We appreciate that they will live in the Blanefield, Killearn etc area. SCC is genuinely pleased that the business contributes so much employment in the local area. However, surely within this area there are more suitable sites for this commercial base. The applicant presents a choice only between its present location in the north of Glasgow and Edenmill Farm. This is a false choice. We see from the evidence that the work sites are spread across Scotland, mainly in the Central Belt, and the Edenmill location is by no means at their centre.

In summary, we seriously doubt that traffic movements would decrease in the event that the proposal is allowed. If that is the case, or if traffic movements would even remain the same as at present, it is possibly an indication that the site is being used already for activities, which are not permitted as agricultural.

The concerns about road safety are clear and consistently presented by the Roads consultee on this and prior applications. The applicant mentions the Food Festival event which saw large traffic volumes attend the site last November. This is not a good guide, as the event was a one-off and was accompanied by special signage provided by the police, and police were present to control the junction at the busiest time. Similarly, the Christmas season is a special case and objections have not been made against that business.

Safety objections cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the applicant provides employment and economic benefit to the area. All of the policies supporting rural economic development, farm diversification and the like make specific mention of the provision of safe access as an essential prerequisite to planning consent. Does the authority really want to be on record as allowing developments which road safety consultees have consistently opposed a development as unsafe? If the authority could consider that some level of danger is worth accepting for some level of (alleged) economic benefit, it needs to decide at what scale of activity the equation would ever be balanced the other way.

To repeat, and contrary to the impression given by the applicant in his campaigns for public support, SCC is not opposed to commercial activities taking place on this site: SCC and other concerned parties and experts merely request that such commercial activities be provided with safe access to the roads network. It would be unfair on other businesses for the authority to allow one business to expand without attending to the requirement for appropriate location and safe access, when other businesses have to comply with the appropriate standards. It would create a bad precedent for road safety in other commercial developments.

The applicant in this case (and previously in 08/00824/PPP) has made token gestures toward improving sight lines at the junction, but has made no efforts toward providing a genuinely safe access, with proper visibility for the volume and types of traffic, and away from the residential users of the existing access. By contrast, we can mention a comparable development at Laighparks (now Oakwood Garden Centre, on the A81 west of Killearn), where the developer had to fund major junction improvements. While the A809 is not a trunk road, the applicant's own expert in case 08/00824/PPP admits that the criteria on this road would be the same. We can also mention

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

that the local villages feature cafes, butchers and deli shops, which are located in proper retail sites and pay full business rates. We do not mean to put these different businesses in opposition, but we do expect that the council will treat them on a 'level playing field'.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 Planning Application file 10/00027/FUL. File can be viewed online at:

http://hbedrms.stirling.gov.uk/PAP/SearchResult.asp?AppNumber=10/00027/ FUL

Author(s) Name Designation Tel No/Extension

Peter McKechnie Planning Officer 01786 443143

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Kevin Robertson Head of Planning, Regulation and Waste

Date 21 June 2010 Reference 10/00027/FUL

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc

APPENDIX B

PP20100629Item06Blanefield.doc