EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE: 16 AUGUST 2013

13/0077/PP: ERECTION OF 12 NO HOUSES, IN 6 NO SEMI DETACHED UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROAD AND SUDS

AT DAVID DALE AVENUE, STEWARTON

BY HEMINGSLEY HOMES LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development Click for Application Details: http://eplanning.east-ayrshire.gov.uk/online/centralDistribution.do?action=dispatch&caseType=Application&caseNo=13/0077/PP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET

1. DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION

1.1 The application seeks planning consent for the erection of 12 houses, with access road and Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). These are proposed in the form of 6 two storey, semi-detached units, located on a staggered north to south basis, very similar in design to those already erected in Lainshaw grounds, finished in a buff coloured reconstituted stone to the frontages, and white rendered finish to the side and rear elevations, with cills, quoins etc detailing also picked out in reconstituted stone, and the roof in grey concrete tiles. 1.2 The applicant’s have lodged with the application, Surveys from 2011 and 2013 on European Protected Species, an overall Ecology Report (2011), with a Flood Risk Assessment (2004) for the larger Lainshaw site, and various reports on trees. In order to facilitate the proposal, the applicant has made minor amendments to the siting of the proposed houses throughout the application, to accommodate the designated flood plain and the protected trees on site. For clarity, the applicant notes that the existing footpath is to be re-directed, however, this would require to be the subject of a public path diversion order, and would not be undertaken under this current application. One large sycamore is proposed for removal, and a number of self-seeded saplings throughout the western portion of the site. The proposal does not indicate the remaining mature trees are to be felled.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 It is recommended that the application 12/0049/PP should be approved with conditions, but the decision notice be withheld until the legal agreement is concluded and appropriately registered with the land, as per S.75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended.

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 As indicated in Section 5 of the report, the application is in accordance with the Development Plan. In terms of Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Section) Act 1997, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 3.2 As indicated at Section 6 of the report, there are material considerations relevant to this application. These are generally supportive of the application in terms of the consultation responses and any European Protected Species which may be on site; however the body of objections received is also a material consideration and is not in support of the application proposal. All points raised in the letters of objection have been responded to in Section 4 of this report. Aside from the concerns regarding the principle of the development, the concerns raised by the objectors can be addressed through the imposition of conditions if Members agree that planning permission should be granted. 3.3 The proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the application site without adversely impacting on the amenity of the surrounding area and without affecting the setting of Lainshaw House noting the dividing land in-between this site and the House. The design and external finish of the proposed dwellinghouses is in-keeping with the design of the overall development at Lainshaw Estate. The development can be accommodated within the application site noting the expert advice of the Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer with particular reference to the trees which are covered by the Tree Preservation Order within the site. Whilst there are some self-seeded trees scheduled for removal, and one mature tree, if Members choose to grant consent, overall this is considered to be an insignificant number of trees as the vast majority of trees within the site are scheduled to be retained. Members should note that whilst the site is covered by a blanket TPO, not all trees on site are mature or of significance.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

Should the Committee agree that this application should be refused contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development then the application will not require to be referred to full council as it would not be a significant departure from council policy.

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

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE: 16 AUGUST 2013

13/0077/PP: ERECTION OF 12 NO HOUSES, IN 6 NO SEMI DETACHED UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROAD AND SUDS

AT DAVID DALE AVENUE, STEWARTON BY HEMINGSLEY HOMES LTD

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to present for consideration an application for planning permission which is to be considered by the Planning Committee, under the Scheme of Delegation as the application has more than 10 objections.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS 2.1 Site Description: The site is within the former woodland policies of Lainshaw Estate, Stewarton, and is located to the east of Lainshaw House, adjacent to the southern gatehouse, on the south side of David Dale Avenue/Montgomerie Drive. The site measures some 1.5 hectares, and the site is subject to a blanket Tree Preservation Order. One of the Council’s Core Paths runs along the river bank to the south of the site, and a path from the junction of David Dale Avenue, south through the site has been mapped since at least the 1860 Ordnance Survey series. Lainshaw House is a three storey Category B listed building, in the Classical style, dating largely from 19th Century, but with earlier areas and was converted to flatted dwellinghouses in 2008/09, with enabling development adjacent mainly to the west comprising large detached properties. Lainshaw Estate is not designated for any particular use in the current East Ayrshire Local Plan. 2.2 Proposed Development: The application seeks planning consent for the erection of 12 houses, with access road and Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). These are proposed in the form of 6 two storey, semi-detached units, located on a staggered north to south basis, very similar in design to those already erected in Lainshaw grounds, finished in a buff coloured reconstituted stone to the frontages, and white rendered finish to the side and rear elevations, with cills, quoins etc detailing also picked out in reconstituted stone, and the roof in grey concrete tiles. 2.3 The applicant’s have lodged with the application, Surveys from 2011 and 2013 on European Protected Species, an overall Ecology Report (2011), with a Flood Risk Assessment (2004) for the larger Lainshaw site, and various reports on trees. In order to facilitate the proposal, the applicant has made minor amendments to the siting of the proposed houses throughout the application, to accommodate the designated flood plain and the protected trees on site. For clarity, the applicant notes that the existing footpath is to be re-directed, however, this would require to be the subject of a public path diversion order, and would not be undertaken under this current application. One large sycamore is proposed for removal, and a number of self-seeded saplings

throughout the western portion of the site. The proposal does not indicate the remaining mature trees are to be felled.

3. CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED 3.1 The responses received in connection with the consultations are summarised for the purposes of this report as follows:

3.2 East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service has no objections to the proposal, noting that general conditions should be applied to control noisy work on site; all drainage should be completed to the satisfaction of SEPA and/or Scottish Water; and any waste arising from the works should be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Waste Management Authority and otherwise than by burning.

These matters can all be covered by the imposition of suitable planning conditions or advisory notes, should Members decide to grant consent.

3.2 East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service (Contaminated Land Officer) has no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions on a Site Investigation and Risk Assessment being carried out, with an associated verification report.

This matter can all be covered by the imposition of suitable planning conditions, should Members decide to grant consent.

3.3 East Ayrshire Council Roads and Transportation Service has not objected to the proposal but initially noted that additional information was required on the proposed compensatory flood storage. Thereafter, minor changes to the position of proposed houses, and discussions with the applicant demonstrated that flood risk would not be an issue. Other early outstanding matters in relation to the road layout in terms of the new main access and access to the dwellings; access arrangements to the new swale; details of discharge from the swale to the Annick Water; and junction visibilities were also resolved by the applicants.

Should Members decide to grant consent, the above issues not already resolved can be covered by appropriate planning conditions and/or advisory notes.

3.4 East Ayrshire Council Roads and Transportation Service (Flooding) initially objected to the proposal, primarily on the basis that building work is proposed within the flood plain. Notwithstanding this, negotiations were had with the applicants agent and Roads Service (Flooding) and SEPA, which culminated in SEPA noting that compensatory storage only needed to be provided up to the 200 yr. flood level at 78.3m OD. Based on the revised drawings showing minor repositioning of houses on the site, no floodplain development was subsequently proposed and the compensatory storage was therefore no longer needed, and on that basis, The Roads Service (Flooding) removed their objection.

Noted.

3.5 East Ayrshire Council Leisure and Recreation (Outdoor Services) noted that a competent tree survey to the current British Standard (BS 5837:2012) is required to assess the effects of the proposal on the surrounding trees, as per previous dialogue with the applicant. This was subsequently provided together with a site plan noting the position on site of the proposed houses for further comment.

The applicant has submitted [i] a report on the removal of one tree [Sycamore], previously identified as tree no.444, noting it was a relatively poor specimen of a common type that could be removed with a more appropriate replacement; [ii] a survey carried out to BS 5837:2012; and [iii] previous surveys of the estate woodlands. As the applicants have demonstrated that the houses can be accommodated, with micro-siting, without damage to the mature TPO trees on site, the Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer has advised of no objections subject to conditions on tree protection prior to, and during construction, should Members wish to grant consent.

3.6 East Ayrshire Woodlands noted that they have supported Stewarton Woodland Action Trust to develop access and manage the woodland at David Dale Avenue at various periods over the last 15 years. The woodland to the east of the proposed development site is included within the Millennium Forest sites on which East Ayrshire Council has an on-going legal commitment to maintain public access. The development will involve the felling of trees covered by a TPO, and whilst the quality of the trees is not particularly high, they do still contribute significantly to the amenity of the area. Whilst only the felling of a large sycamore is highlighted, the proposal will undoubtedly impact on the integrity of the trees to be retained and the Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer should advise on such impacts. Clumps of Japanese knotweed are known to thrive within the development site, and will need to be eliminated/ eradicated before any development proceeds. In terms of public access, the access road for the development is a popularly used link connecting the residential area to the north with the core path route along the Annick Water. It is essential that this access is retained not only for the general public but also to facilitate maintenance of the core path and access for emergency services.

Noted. It is not proposed to restrict access to this site to the east, or the remainder of the woods under this application. The Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer has advised in detail on the impacts on the trees within the site and has no objections (as detailed in Section 3.5 above), subject to conditions. Should Members decide to grant consent, any removal of Japanese Knotweed can be controlled by further planning conditions noting also the Contaminated Land Officer’s requirements for a Site Investigation Report.

3.7 East Ayrshire Council Countryside Access Officer was consulted but has not responded to the consultation request at the time of writing this report. 3.8 Scottish Natural Heritage has no objection, but note that as a European Protected Species, appropriate otter and bat surveys should be carried out, prior to any consent being granted. As the site might also support protected UK species, a suitable badger and bird surveys should also be carried out prior to any works commencing.

Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1999, planning permission must not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European Protected Species (EPS) unless the Planning Authority is satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative, and the development is required for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. The Planning Authority must also satisfy itself that a licence to disturb EPS is obtainable, prior to granting any consent. In this case, otter spraints have been recorded on the south banks of the Annick Water, and the applicant has undertaken an otter survey, as well as a bat survey, both of which are acceptable.

The application has been accompanied by 2005 Ecological Survey, and a further survey undertaken in 2011.

3.9 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) originally objected to the proposal on grounds of flood prevention, however following discussions with the applicants, SEPA has removed their objection.

The applicants were asked to clarify any compensatory flood storage on site, and were able to demonstrate that by re-positioning the most southerly three houses on the site that the site would be predominately free from flood risk and there would be no impacts on the house units as proposed.

3.10 Scottish Water has not responded to their consultation at the time of writing this report. 3.11 Scottish Power has no objections and noted their infrastructure in the vicinity. 3.12 Scotland Gas Networks has no objections and noted their infrastructure in the vicinity.

If Members choose to grant consent, advisory notes can recommend early contact with the utility bodies detailed in Sections 3.10 and 3.11 above.

3.13 Stewarton And District Community Council have objected to the application on a number of grounds, which will be summarised in Section 4 of this report. 4. REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 The application was advertised in the Kilmarnock Standard on week ending 15th March 2013 and neighbour notification was also undertaken. 4.2 Sixteen letters of objection were received on the proposal from 15 parties. The letters of objection highlight the following issues:

Procedural issues

4.3 There appears to be no formal notification of this proposed development, I previously asked to be notified via your website, but no notification was received. Also, I previously objected to the preceding application and this was not logged.

Neighbour notification was issued by the Council and the application was also advertised in the Kilmarnock Standard. Neighbour notification is the correct and required procedure to be followed in terms of notification of planning applications, rather than any request to be notified via the Council website.

4.4 Some of the documents cannot be read on line and the objector previously complained about this and comments have went unheeded. The public are therefore denied access to what the relevant consutlees have said in response.

Previously, the objector noted that the on-line system could not be read, which on investigation, was due to some members of the public not having compatible programmes installed on their own PCs. This issue has now been rectified by converting such information to PDF format.

Principle of the development 4.5 There are many new developments in the area just now where houses cannot be sold, so why destroy land forever for the sake of 12 houses which will end up the same?

Housing supply and demand and the construction industry are cyclical in nature, and whilst there may be housing in the general area that may be built and not yet sold, the adjacent development further in Lainshaw Estate has proved a successful venture, with only two plots remaining unsold. UK housing demand has been increasing generally over the years, as households tend to live in larger houses and have more disposable income, as well as factoring in demographic factors such as increased life expectancy, and the rise of one person households.

4.6 The last builder has left Montgomerie Drive incomplete with houses still to be sold, so why approve further building by persons associated with the previous development? The Director of this company was previously involved with Lainshaw Estate, re the need for Japanese Knotweed removal, and objectors have no confidence the current applicant would comply with this, because of the their track record with various fault found on the Lainshaw Estate.

This is a personal view and is not a material planning consideration. Any assessment of this planning application must be based purely on the planning merits of the proposal. Should Members decide to grant to grant consent, conditions can be attached on the removal of invasive species found on the site.

4.7 The application is not in accordance with the original development approved for Lainshaw Estate, and as it is within the development boundary, it should be challenged against those conditions set out in the original approval, which stated there should be no development in front of the listed building. It will appear as if Lainshaw House is in the middle of a housing scheme.

The application is a standalone application in its own right, and as such must be assessed on its own planning merits. It is however, to the east [front] of the listed building but is separated by almost a hectare of wooded grounds, which will still allow sufficient separation between the site and Lainshaw House and will not detract from the setting of the listed building. This matter is further considered in Section 5 of this report against the relevant policies of the East Ayrshire Local Plan (EALP).

4.8 The grounds in question form part of a woodland which is developed and maintained by the Stewarton Woodland Action Trust (SWAT) - SWAT have invested money into said development and maintenance, and given the community an area to be proud of. Destroying it to erect dwellings would not uphold this highly regarded view - to erect new buildings over would not only destroy the woodland, but the principle behind it.

The area is undesignated land within the settlement boundary and it is not identified as safeguarded open space. As such, each application is assessed on its own planning merits against the various policies of the EALP, discussed in more depth at Section 5, below.

4.9 The area is public open space/woodlands and the Council should protect it as such. There should be no development on the site. It seems strange that this application is even being considered given that it is at odds with EAC's stated policy regarding amenity open space, and in particular Policy RES22.

As noted in the previous response, the area has no land use designations in the current East Ayrshire Local Plan and it is undesignated land within the settlement boundary. Policy RES22 is for the protection of existing residential area, of which, this site is not one. The Council as Planning Authority is required to consider all applications which are submitted and cannot refuse to assess this planning application.

Land Ownership 4.10 This site should still be in the ownership of the East Ayrshire Council as part of their continuing assets from the previous Council, following on from site being in the ownership of Stewarton Burgh Council in 1975. We believe East Ayrshire Council should refuse the sale of this land, and keep it for future development.

East Ayrshire Council Estates Section has confirmed that the Council do not own this land as it was sold in 2006 to Travis Homes. The applicant has also advised the land is not owned by the Council but is instead

now owned by an individual. The applicant has completed the appropriate ownership notification which is required under the Regulations.

Effect on the setting of a Listed Building 4.11 Objection is offered to the proposed development because it is inappropriate in the context of the setting of Lainshaw House as a Listed Building. In previous applications, the Council recognised that new development should be located primarily to the rear of Lainshaw House to preserve its setting. This development does not accord with this objective, and the development is inappropriate. If this development is allowed there will be further encroachment over time of the open space aspects around the listed building, and ultimately the house will sit in the middle of a housing scheme.

Whilst the proposed site is in the grounds of Lainshaw House, the mature screening provided by the trees on the site will ensure the proposed houses have no significant effect on the listed building at Lainshaw House, or any impacts on the setting of that building. The houses are proposed some 175 metres to the east of the house, and there is, in any regard, a reasonable level of existing tree cover maintained between the listed building and the proposed housing site.

Sewerage 4.12 Objectors have severe concerns that the main sewer would not be able to cope with these additional properties. Recently we have had problems with raw sewage overflowing from the main line and spilling into the park and down Montgomerie Drive. The sewage pipes are at breaking point already.

This matter would need to be fully investigated by the developer. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the site is capable of development. Any detailed drainage solutions would be covered by condition, and then assessed in detail at Building Warrant stage, if Members are minded to approve the proposal.

Flooding 4.13 This area is the subject of almost permanent flooding when raining heavily, and extra houses will exacerbate this. The flood assessment is out of date. The high levels of the Annick Water over recent years’ presents a real danger to any development being flooded, and the flood risk assessment provided cannot be relied upon, as it is for the adjacent Lainshaw larger site.

The Flood Risk Assessment was carried out in 2004, and on receipt of the application, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) objected to the application. Following discussions with SEPA and the Council’s Roads and Transportation (Flooding) Service, which resulted in some minor re-positioning of the house units, this objection was withdrawn, and neither body have any objection to the application. The consultation responses which have been received from SEPA and the

Roads Service (Flooding) have been outlined in Sections 3.4 and 3.9 of this report.

Rights of Way/Access 4.14 Objection once again to this development is very strongly based on the use that people of Stewarton of every age use this access and area as a big form of relaxing walks with family and pets. The existing public footpath included within site boundary is regarded as Public Right Of Way. The development will turn a country walk into a residential street and is likely to have adverse impact on current woodland areas which have been badly neglected by the current owners of the land who are seeking to secure profit from the destruction of a local amenity.

There are no plans to prevent access through the site and the current pathway is proposed to be made into a road, with the houses to one side only, which will still give the appearance of a wooded walk, albeit to a lesser extent. On balance, whilst siting houses in this part of the woods will lead to a more urbanised feel to the site, the area will also benefit from the natural surveillance of having residents on site, which will make the area feel more active and secure. The remainder of the woods are still available for public access. This site is currently in a semi-naturalised state, with mature trees existing with a great number of self-seeded trees, however, overall the site does not exhibit neglect, but is more an unmanaged area, within the larger woods.

Traffic 4.15 It is understood that Montgomerie Drive is a private road - are there not planning limitations which restrict the number of dwellings permitted off a private road?

Montgomerie Drive was adopted and added to the Register of Public Roads in June 2012.

4.16 David Dale Avenue/Crusader Crescent will become even busier with traffic all at an already busy junction and many children play in play area close to this junction. There must be issues with the gradient approaching the junction and minimum junction spacing.

The proposal has been assessed in full by the Roads and Transportation Service who have no objections to the development.

4.17 Construction traffic will cause problems for blocking driveways and parking in this busy area, but there is also the potential for accidents.

Any possible blocking of driveways would be a matter for the Police, as would any accident.

Wildlife

4.18 A full ecological survey would be in order to assess the impact on the local fauna and wild life.

Two ecological surveys have been submitted, as have individual survey reports on European Protected Species, such as bats and otters, which have been assessed by Scottish Natural Heritage, who have not objected to the application. Scottish Natural Heritage’s consultation response has been detailed in Section 3.8 of this report.

Trees 4.19 Although it is only proposed to remove one tree, it is unlikely that other trees in close proximity to the houses would survive. Rather than condoning the removal of these trees, the Council should be working with the landowner to reserve this woodland space for the benefit of the local residents. Developments within the estate by another developer have led to a detrimental effect on trees on many mature trees which were not scheduled to be removed.

This area of woodland has been assessed by the Council Senior Arboricultural Officer who has no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. A tree survey has been undertaken and the house units micro-sited to ensure that root plates of the trees have been taken into account to ensure there is no damage to the identified trees. Some others that are self-seeded will be removed; however these trees are of little importance in silvicultural terms.

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 assessing the proposed development, the Development Plan comprises the East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 (EALP). East Ayrshire Local Plan 5.2 Within settlement boundaries, Policy RES3 notes that the Council will positively encourage the sympathetic residential development of gap, infill or other redevelopment sites not specifically safeguarded or identified for particular development purposes on the Local Plan maps. Such proposals will be particularly supported where the development:

(i) has no adverse impact on the surrounding natural and built environment and adjacent uses;

It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the surrounding built environment and adjacent uses. However, as the site is within an area covered by a TPO, the application has been

assessed by the Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer, who has not objected to the proposals, subject to condtions.

(ii) has no unacceptable transportation and infrastructure implications; The Council’s Roads and Transportation Service also have no objections, subject to conditions.

(iii) is compatible with surrounding densities and housing types; and

It is considered that the proposal is compatible with surrounding densities and housing types similar to those in Lainshaw Estate where there is a mixture of house-type ranging from flatted dwellinghouses within Lainshaw House, larger detached dwellinghouses, the two gatehouses and the stable conversions.

(iv) is in full compliance with the Council’s approved Design Guidance.

As above, the design and materials are acceptable in this regard.

Policies RES 23 and RES 25 5.3 The Council will require all housing developers to provide areas of recreational and amenity open space as an integral part of their development proposals. However, as an alternative to providing new open space areas, where a site is located adjacent or in close proximity to an area of existing open space in need of upgrading or improvement, an appropriate Section 75 Agreement to upgrade and improve the existing open space area and provide for the maintenance of that area for a specified period to be agreed, may be a suitable alternative.

The proposal does not denote any areas of public open space within the site, however the applicant has indicated a willingness to make a contribution to improvements in the area, as an alternative. This could be covered by a suitable legal agreement should Members decide to grant consent. One option explored was the adjacent play park; however this is not in Council ownership, notwithstanding this, there are nearby open spaces in Council ownership that could benefit from enhancements.

Policy RES 26 5.4 All developers of new housing developments should have regard to the private open space guidelines in Schedule 5. These may be relaxed where the Council is satisfied that relaxation is justified.

The applicant has provided sufficient private open space and therefore the proposal accords with this Policy.

Policy RES 29

5.5 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 etc, 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.

The proposal for this site is for 12 dwellings and as such Policy RES29 developer contributions apply, with the total amount payable being £13,272. The applicant has indicated a willingness to pay the contribution on completion of the 6th house, which is acceptable. This could also be covered by a legal agreement, should Members decide to grant consent.

Policy ENV18 5.6 The Council will actively seek to preserve and supplement existing broadleaf and native tree species throughout East Ayrshire. In particular, the Council will:

(i) protect those individual, groups and areas of trees which contribute significantly to the landscape quality of both the built and rural environment, through the serving of Tree Preservation Orders;

The site is within an area covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO/8/1984 – Lainshaw Estate, Stewarton). It is proposed to remove several trees within the site; therefore, the Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer has assessed the proposals and does not object, subject to conditions covering on going tree protection before and during the construction phase, to current BS standards.

Policy ENV23 5.7 In cases where a development is proposed on land which is known or suspected to be contaminated, the Council will require the developer to investigate and identify the nature of the contamination and to detail the remedial measures to be undertaken to treat or remove that contamination, as an integral part of any submitted planning application. In this regard, developers will be required to carry out a Risk Assessment of the development site as detailed in PAN33 (revised 2000): Development of Contaminated Land, Annex 1.

The site of the former waste water treatment works has the potential for soil contamination, however, the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has noted the site is low risk for contamination and has no objections, subject to conditions which can be imposed if Members choose to grant consent.

6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The principal material considerations relevant to the appraisal of the application are consultation responses, representations, impact on the amenity of the area, the planning history of the site, and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. Consultations Responses 6.2 As detailed in Section 3 of this report, consultees have offered no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. However, the planning authority has received a letter of objection from Stewarton Community Council, in terms of the unacceptable visual and landscape impacts of the proposal, as well as more specific issues of flooding, drainage and access.

Representations 6.3 Within the substantial body of representations received by the Council, there are concerns, particularly [i] in relation to the principle of development this area of land, which is clearly highly valued by the community [ii] on more specific issues, such as the effect of the proposal on the listed building; drainage; flooding; access; traffic implications, wildlife and trees. 6.4 Whilst these issues have been assessed and the consultees have not offered any objections, the level of objection is considered to be material in the determination of this application and in relation to Members in coming to a view on the proposed development.

6.5 No letters of support have been received in connection with the applications. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 6.6 These Regulations relate to European Protected Species and in respect of the current application, have been considered by Planning and Economic Development Service in this current assessment. As indicated in the consultation response from SNH, information was provided by the applicant and SNH have confirmed they are satisfied with the submitted Bat and Otter surveys. It is considered that the Planning Authority have fulfilled their obligations under these Regulations, should Members decide to grant consent.

Planning History 6.7 Application no. 11/0161/PP for the erection of 6 houses and associated access road and SUDS, was submitted on 01/03/2011 and withdrawn by the applicants on 07/08/2012. 6.8 Application no. 12/0025/TP for proposed works to multiple trees: sycamore, willow, hawthorn, lime (limbing and felling to achieve safety clearance from 11kv overhead lines) was approved with conditions on 04/04/2012.

6.9 Application no. 12/0765/PP for the erection of 12 No Houses, in 6 No semi-detached units with associated access road and SUDS, was received 30/10/2012 and withdrawn by the applicants on 29/01/2013.

8. FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 There are no potential financial implications for the Council in coming to a view on this application. 8.2 In the event of the application being approved, Heads of Agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, to be concluded prior to the issue of consent, should comprise the following Heads of Terms:-

i) the provision of a sum of money for the upgrade of a nearby woodland facility before

any works commence on site. The level of actual contribution should be £4,000, and;

ii) the sum of £13,272 in respect of developer contribution which is required under the provisions of Policy RES29 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan, to be paid in full upon issue of the completion certificate for of the 6th residential unit on site.

9. CONCLUSIONS 9.1 As indicated in Section 5 of the report, the application is in accordance with the Development Plan. In terms of Sections 25 and 37 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Section) Act 1997, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 9.2 As indicated at Section 6 of the report, there are material considerations relevant to this application. These are generally supportive of the application in terms of the consultation responses and any European Protected Species which may be on site; however the body of objections received is also a material consideration and is not in support of the application proposal. All points raised in the letters of objection have been responded to in Section 4 of this report. Aside from the concerns regarding the principle of the development, the concerns raised by the objectors can be addressed through the imposition of conditions if Members agree that planning permission should be granted. 9.3 The proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the application site without adversely impacting on the amenity of the surrounding area and without affecting the setting of Lainshaw House noting the dividing land in-between this site and the House. The design and external finish of the proposed dwellinghouses is in-keeping with the design of the overall development at Lainshaw Estate. The development can be accommodated within the application site noting the expert advice of the Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer with particular reference to the trees which are covered by the Tree Preservation Order within the site. Whilst there are some self-seeded trees scheduled for removal, and one mature tree, if Members choose to grant consent, overall this is considered to be an insignificant number of trees as the vast

majority of trees within the site are scheduled to be retained. Members should note that whilst the site is covered by a blanket TPO, not all trees on site are mature or of significance.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 It is recommended that the application 12/0049/PP should be approved with conditions, but the decision notice be withheld until the legal agreement is concluded and appropriately registered with the land, as per S.75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE Should the Committee agree that this application should be refused contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development then the application will not require to be referred to full council as it would not be a significant departure from council policy. Alan Neish Head of Planning and Economic Development 8th August 2013 FV/AN

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Application form and drawings 2. Submitted reports in support of the application 3. Consultation responses 4. Statutory Notices and Certificates 5. Letters of Representation 6. East Ayrshire Local Plan (2010). Anyone wishing to inspect the above background papers should contact Marion Fergusson, Senior Planning Officer on 01563 576769 Implementation Officer: David McDowall, Operations Manager

Location Proposed Housing Development David Dale Avenue

Stewarton East Ayrshire Nature of Proposal: Erection of 12 No houses, in 6 No semi detached units with

associated access road and SUDS Name and Address of Applicant: Hemingsley Homes Ltd

32 Oaks Road Great Glen Leicester LE8 9EG

Name and Address of Agent Iain McGregor

Buccule Design 56 Haggs Road Glasgow G41 4Aw

Officer’s Ref: Marion Fergusson 01563 576769

1. A site investigation and risk assessment shall be carried out and a report shall be submitted in writing to, and be approved by the planning department in writing (re PAN 33 Para 37) prior to the commencement of any works on site. For the avoidance of doubt, the investigation and assessment shall be conducted in line with BS 10175: 2001 code of practice for ‘The investigation of potentially contaminated sites’ and Contaminated Land Report 11 – ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’, (CLR 11).

REASON: To ensure potential risks arising from previous site uses have been fully assessed.

2. On completion of all remedial works (and prior to site occupation) further to the terms of Condition 1 above, a verification report detailing all remedial actions which were carried out at the site, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

REASON: To provide verification that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the remediation plan and to the Authority’s satisfaction.

TP24

East Ayrshire Council

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

Application No: 13/0077/PP

3. A badger survey shall be carried by a suitably qualified ecologist 250 metres either side of the development site prior to any development works commencing on site and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by Planning Authority prior to any works commencing no site. If evidence of badgers is found then a Species Protection Plan shall be prepared which includes details of proposed mitigation measures. If a Species Protection Plan is to be prepared then it shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any further works are undertaken on site.

REASON: In terms of the legal requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

4. All works on site shall be undertaken on site in accordance with the approved details of Condition no. 3 above.

REASON: In terms of the legal requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

5. All ground or vegetation clearance works, including any tree felling, shall take place outwith the main bird breeding season (i.e. outwith the period April to July inclusive), and no ground or vegetation clearance works is permitted between April to July in this respect. If this is not possible an ornithologist shall be engaged to survey the ground and trees immediately prior to such works to advise the developer of any bird nesting activity and of any actions required to protect the birds.

REASON: In terms of the legal requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

6. Prior to any development on site, the applicant shall arrange for a safe location zone for any compound or plant that may be required in conjunction with the Council’s Outdoor Amenities and Planning and Economic Development Division/Section. This zone will be subject to inspection on site and written agreement thereafter, prior to any works commencing.

REASON: In the interests of the protected trees on site.

7. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, a revised site plan showing the final positions of the house plots in relation to their micro-siting to accommodate tree root plates, shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site.

REASON: In the interests of the protected trees on site.

8. All work on site shall be undertaken in accordance with the final revised site plan approved under the terms of Condition 7.

REASON: In the interests of the protected trees on site.

9. Tree protection measures in line with the practices in BS 5837: 2012, for the protection of trees during development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of the protected trees on site.

10. The tree protection measures approved under the terms of Condition no. 9 above, shall be undertaken on site for the entire duration of construction works.

REASON: In the interests of the protected trees on site.

11. Access shall be maintained to the new swale for maintenance purposes where it is not adjacent to the carriageway.

REASON: In the interest of servicing the site adequately.

12. Junction visibilities of 2.5 metres by 35 metres shall be provided at the application site access/junction with Montgomerie Drive prior to any works commencing on site and no walls, fencing, buildings over 1 metre in height shall be allowed within the splay areas formed. The visibility splays required under this condition shall thereafter be maintained on site in accordance with the requirements of this condition.

REASON: In the interests of safe vehicular access and egress.

13. Notwithstanding the approved plans all new private driveways will require to be hard paved for the first 2 metres.

REASON: In order to prevent over carry of loose material onto the public footway and carriageway

14. The raised table shall be constructed to include the junction opposite from the proposed site.

REASON: In the interests of safe vehicular movements.

15. All proposed bin stores will be located out-with the visibility sight line splay areas for the individual driveways as specified in Condition no. 12 above.

REASON: In the interests of safe vehicular access and egress.

16. Noisy work on the site during construction shall be restricted to 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 8am – 1pm on a Saturday, and no noisy work on a Sunday.

REASON: In the interests of maintaining residential amenity in the area.

17. Noise from the works during construction shall at no time cause the underlying background noise level LA90(1hour) to rise by more than 3dB(A) at the nearest noise-sensitive location.

REASON: In the interests of maintaining residential amenity in the area.

18. All waste arising from the works shall be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Waste Management Authority and otherwise than by burning.

REASON: In the interests of maintaining residential amenity in the area.

19. All drainage shall be completed to the satisfaction of SEPA and/or Scottish Water.

REASON: In the interest of servicing the site adequately.

Advisory notes

1. Further to the terms of Condition on. 14 above, the applicant is strongly advised to note the terms of the consultation response from the Council’s Roads and Transportation Service. The applicant is advised that full details of construction will require to be submitted at the Roads Construction Consent stage and that the existing/proposed speed hump at the access location on Montgomerie Drive will may require to be removed to accommodate the new speed table. The applicant is advised to make early contact with the Roads and Transportation Service at The Johnnie Walker Bond, 15 Strand Street, Kilmarnock KA1 1HU or on 01563 576000.

2. The applicant is strongly advised to make early contact with Scotland Gas Networks to discuss whether any of their equipment will be affected by this development.

3. The applicant is strongly advised to make early contact with Scottish Power Systems to discuss whether any of their equipment will be affected by this development.

This map is published by the permission of Ordnance Survey for the internal business use only. No further copies can be made. © Crown copyright. All Rights Reserved. East Ayrshire Council OS Licence No. 10023409 (2010)