Perth and Kinross Council Development Control Committee 28 May 2008 Recommendation by Development Quality Manager

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Perth and Kinross Council Development Control Committee 28 May 2008 Recommendation by Development Quality Manager"

Joshua Blankenship
6 years ago
Views:

1 Perth and Kinross Council Development Control Committee 28 May 2008 Recommendation by Development Quality Manager 4(4) 08/285 Alter the terms of Condition No 17 of planning consent 05/02389/REM to delete "Prior to the commencement of construction" and in addition to allow minor alterations to external elevations at Pitcairnie, Carnbo, Ref No: 08/00067/FUL Ward No: 8 Kinross-shire Summary This report recommends approval of this application for the amendment of this condition as the impact on visual and residential amenity is considered to be acceptable. Background and Description 1 The application relates to the small grouping of 4 dwellinghouses currently under construction on the site. Consent was granted in 2006 (ref:05/02389/rem) for the erection of the 4 houses with Condition 17 of this consent requiring details of the proposed re-engineering of the site/ floor levels to be submitted for prior approval of the Council before development commenced. Development subsequently commenced without submitting these details and the houses were built with finished floor levels higher than those in the approved drawings. 2 This application therefore seeks to alter the terms of condition 17 to remove the Prior to commencement of construction section and provides details of all the finished floor levels and site levels to allow this condition to be purified. The application also addresses some other minor alterations to the external elevations. National Policy and Guidance SPP3 Housing 3 New housing should make a positive contribution to the built and rural environment, and should be designed and laid out to provide lasting benefits. The planning system has an important role in promoting good design, specifying the requirements for landscaping and open space, and indicating where higher densities will be suitable

2 SPP15 Rural Development 4 This SPP advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements, replacement housing, plots on which to build individually designed houses, and holiday homes. SPP7 Planning and Flooding 5 New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere. The storage capacity of functional floodplains should be safeguarded, and works to elevate the level of a site by land raising should not lead to a loss of flood water storage capacity. Development Plan 6 Structure Plan - Perth and Kinross Structure Plan (2003). 7 Environment and resources Policy 9 indicates that there will be a presumption against development in areas where there is a significant probability of flooding. 8 Local Plan Kinross Area Local Plan (2004) The principal policies of relevance are in summary: 9 Policy 1 Sustainable Development identifies guidelines by which all development should be considered in relation to sound principles of sustainable development. Policy 2 'Development Criteria' provides criteria by which all developments will be judged. In particular, that the development should have a landscape framework should have regard to the scale, form, colour and density of development. Policy 4 Flood Risk Development in areas liable to flood or where remedial measures would adversely affect flood risk elsewhere, will not normally be permitted. Policy 5 Landscape indicates that developments should conserve landscape features and sense of local identity. Policy 6 Design and Landscaping indicates that a high standard of design is sought across the entire plan area. Policy 94 Background Policies indicates that development should not adversely affect the density, character or amenity of the settlement Site History 10 An outline application (02/01440/OUT) for the erection of 4 houses on this site was refused in May 2003 principally as being contrary to the local plan on drainage grounds 2

3 and also lack of information as to how it would comply with policies relating to development criteria and landscaping /00987/FUL for a proposed new drainage scheme treatment plant and access road on land adjacent to the application site. The applicant indicated that this application be treated as a related matter within the appeal for application 04/00988/OUT /00988/OUT Proposed courtyard development of four houses: refused (principally through being contrary to local plan drainage policy), approved on appeal /02389/REM Reserved matters application for the erection of 4 houses within the site Consultations 14 SEPA Objection relating to flood risk. However, the issues of flood risk is discussed in the appraisal section of the report. Currently awaiting SEPA to withdraw their objection. 15 Fossoway Community Council Recommends deferral of the application until concerns from local residents are addressed. These concerns are listed below in the representations section. Representations letters of objection from separate households and 1 letter of objection from MSP relating to: Houses out of character with surrounding area Detrimental visual appearance of houses Increase in height of buildings overlooks neighbouring properties Increased flood risk to neighbouring properties Sets a precedent for non-compliance with conditions when the Council will purify them retrospectively Increased height reduces daylight to neighbouring houses Increased height has produced proportionate increase in road noise reflected into neighbouring properties. These issues are addressed in the appraisal section of the report. Appraisal 17 This application seeks an amendment to condition 17 and minor changes to the design. It is first worth noting that this application only represents an amendment to a consented development. Thus, it is assessing the variation between the two applications and is not to address principle issues with what is already consented. 3

4 Design / Visual Impact 18 The alterations to the design include minor changes to the external elevations such as altered fenestration. Also, the finished floor levels of the units have been increased by varying amounts across the site. The highest being 1.175m for the unit in the north-eastern corner of the site. These alterations are relatively minor and they do not significantly increase the visual impact of the development over and above what is consented. They houses appear traditionally designed and suitable for their rural context and the increased height does not make them appear incongruous in the surrounding area. Residential Amenity 19 Concerns have been raised over the impact on neighbouring amenity from the increased height increasing overlooking, overshadowing and further reflecting road traffic noise. The houses were considered an acceptable distance from neighbouring properties and it is not considered that this increase in height will have any further impact in terms of overlooking and overshadowing, particularly to the north-east of the site. 20 Road traffic noise was never an issue with this development and this minor amendment will not have any significant impact in this respect. Drainage and Flooding 21 Many concerns have been raised over the potential increase in flood risk to neighbouring properties. However, this amendment only includes minor recontouring of the access road, no changes to the site levels and an increase in finished floor levels. The increase in floor levels would not exacerbate flood risk to the site and the modifications to the road levels are minor and non-material (i.e. these changes in themselves would not require a new planning application). Moreover, the Council has granted Roads Construction consent for the road levels. As such, the variation between what was consented in the original application and what is proposed in this application is minor and non-material and thus increased flood risk is not an issue with this application. 22 In addition, SEPA have no objection to this proposal. Amendment to Condition Condition 17 reads: Prior to the commencement of construction, details shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority of the proposed re-engineering of site levels (ie. to indicate existing site levels, proposed site levels and proposed finished floor levels) 4

5 throughout the site and the approved details shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the re-engineering of the sloping site does not adversely impact upon the visual amenity of the area or on the amenity of adjacent residential properties. 24 This proposal seeks to alter the terms of the condition by removing Prior to the commencement of construction. 25 The terms of this condition were breached in so far as construction commenced prior to these details being submitted. This consent now seeks to purify this condition by providing these levels and then amending this condition. Breaching suspensive conditions such as this is not uncommon for various reasons. However, the other requirements of these conditions must still be complied with regardless if the details have been submitted at the correct time or not. Moreover, consideration of the details of these conditions is not prejudiced by the fact they have been submitted at the incorrect time. 26 The discussion above indicates why these levels (to which the houses have been constructed) would be acceptable. Therefore, although these details were not submitted at the correct time, as requested by the condition, they are nonetheless acceptable and the development as a whole is acceptable in planning terms. Therefore amendment to the terms of Condition 17 to allow the condition to now be purified would also be acceptable. 27 Concerns have been raised that an amendment such as this sets a precedent for other developers to follow suit. However, the requirements of these conditions are still required regardless of whether they have been provided at the correct time. They are assessed without prejudice to whether development has commenced or not and any developer doing this runs the risk that the details submitted in respect of these conditions are not acceptable. In which case necessary and potentially significant enforcement action would follow. It is as much in the developer s interests as the Council s that any suspensive condition is purified at the correct time thus avoiding enforcement action and legitimising the development. Enforcement action 28 There have been two enforcement cases on this site which are both currently ongoing. The first relates to the construction of the houses with higher floor levels. After discussion with the applicant, it was decided that an application should be submitted for these changes, which is this application. No further enforcement action will be taken regarding this until the application is determined. 29 The second relates to the provision of a boundary wall on the eastern boundary of the site. Condition 15 of the original consent required a 2m high stone wall on the boundary. There are issues with the length and materiality of the wall. The wall has 5

6 not been included as part of the application and the enforcement action for this is separate from, and should have no bearing, on the determination of this application. Representations 30 All the issues raised have been addressed in the appraisals section of this report. Conclusion 31 The amendments to the original application are all acceptable in planning terms and because of this the amendment to the terms of condition 17 of the consent would also be acceptable. Recommendation A Approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1 Condition 17 of planning consent 05/02389/REM now reads Details shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority of the proposed re-engineering of site levels (ie. to indicate existing site levels, proposed site levels and proposed finished floor levels) throughout the site and the approved details shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authority Reason 1 To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the plans approved. Notes There is still an outstanding objection from SEPA in relation to flood risk. No consent shall be issued until SEPA have lifted this objection. Background Papers: 11 letters of representation Contact Officer: Neil Williamson Ext Date: 15 May 2008 Nick Brian Development Quality Manager 6

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 9 September 2015 Site visit made on 9 September 2015 by G J Rollings BA(Hons) MA(UD) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government