report nithsdale area regulatory committeeegenda.dumgal.gov.uk/aksdumgal/images/att19216.pdf ·...

142

2 a A e z 0 r a 0 0 J

2

A

J

0 0 A W

a e a

z! n

f n

i a

v) I I-

W v)

2 LL -

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 19 JANUARY 2005

BLOCK PLAN 04/P/30142

HOUSE TYPE A & B : 2 storey to front (split level) HQ,USE TYPE C : 3 storey to front inc. garage (split level) HOUSE TYPE D & E : 2 storey (level site)

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE

2.4

SITE SECTIONS

~

v 9s lW

3 1 z w

3tIW

38 8 i 8

OL 59 09 ss os SP a% Of s9 09 SS os 6C i! 8

i; f:

04/P/30142

Of s9 09 ss os St


041P130142 ____ K

! ! ! ! ! I ! -- '

a

s

Side Elevatim 1:lW

UOlhm I

HOUSE TYPE A

GrOund F b Plan 1


04/P/30142

Rear Elevalkn I:IW

- Gmund Floor Plan I 1W Garage FlmrPlao 1 IW

HOUSE TYPE B COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 19 JANUARY 2005

First Fimr Plan 1 100

HOUSE TYPE C COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE I 9 JANUARY 2005

2.4

04/P/30142

a

S i Elevalon I:lW

Ground F b r Pkn I:lW

HOUSE TYPE D COMMITTEE REPORT

~

NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE

04/P/30142

Rear EbvaWn 1.1W

a

Gmund Floor Plan 1:1w

HOUSE TYPE E COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 19 JANUARY 2005

2.4

David Bell - Operations Manager Development Control Council Offices, Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries DGI 2HS Telephone (01387) 260199 - Direct Dial Fax (01387) 260188

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF 27 DWELLINGHOUSES, FORMATION OF ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AT LAND BETWEEN HIGH ROAD AND SHIELDHILL ROAD, TORTHORWALD

APPLICANT: BORDER HOMES REF. NO.: 04/P/30142

~ecommendation by Operations Manager ~ e v e l a p ~ e n t Control - Refuse on the fQi~owing grounds:-

9. the provisions of Policy LN4U of the Finalised Nithsdale 1 oca) Plan for Torthotwald and as such is contrary to General Policies 6 and f ? of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan.

2. and other facilities, which in advance of a comprehensive review of future planning policies for the T a ~ h o ~ a l d , would be ~ ~ ~ u ~ i c i a l to the Finalised Nl th$d~~e Local Plan.

3. appear in part conspicuous and vjsualiy intrusive on the S~ffcture Plan Palicy €2.

4. development of suburban estate character that would be out of keeping with the existing character of the village, contrary to the provisions of Finalised ~ithsdale Local Plan G Decision -

This proposal is considered to be premature in that if permission were granted it w

The proposed developm@nt would require major extensions and modifications to mains services

The site is in a pro~inent position in a Regional Scenic Area. The proposed ~ e v e l o p ~ e n t would trary to the provisions of

at@ a The i n c o ~ o r a t i o ~ of substa~tial2 and 3 storey viMs an

licies 7 and

~

Case Officer - M r s Janice Kay

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 The application site for a “greenfield” housing development is proposed mostly within the Torthorwald settlement boundary identified in the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. The Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme and road-widening proposal are on the other side of the C9 road to the southwest, outwith the Torthorwald settlement boundary identified in the Nithsdale Local Plan.

1.2 The proposal is contrary to the Dumfries and District Local Plan in that it is outwith the settlement boundary of Torthorwald and is subject to policy H3, Restriction on Housing in the Countryside. In the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan the site includes the policy area LN41 - “reserved housing land” and “hite land to the south east not identified for a particular use. No allocation of house numbers has therefore been given for this site because it was intended for long-term housing development.

1.3 The site measures 3.03 hectares, :omprising agricultural land. It lies to the northeast Df the C9 public road on a concave hillside and is tisually exposed. To the northeast and south are Oesidential properties, which have been built in *ecent years on the hillside. On the remaining

boundaries it is agricultural land. A track/public right of way with mature hedgerows on both sides crosses the site linking two public roads.

1.4 Amended plans show the re-contouring of the site to provide approximately six levels, each regraded to form flat or split-level sites. The three site levels down from the top are for split-level houses, most of which are single storey to the rear and two to the front. Within the middle levels there are some which are effectively three storeys with a basement garage to the front. The bottom two site levels are for two-storey detached houses. There is a predominance of 2 storey properties in the middle and lower levels. The top level, for a two- storey house (plot 27), is accessed from the top road. Apart from plot 26 which shares an access with plot 27, plots 1-25 take access from the lower road, the C9.

1.5 Five house types have been submitted. Each are detached, four or five bedroom properties with either separate or integral double garages. The roof finish is concrete grey profile tile; the walls are white dry dash render with Uvpc windows and doors. 1.6 The right of way is crossed twice to access plots 19 - 2 3 inclusive, with a children’s play area


- 2 - and passive recreation area beside plot 23 and the right of way.

1.7 The indicative landscaping proposals provide planting details throughout the site. Specific details of the scheme would be required by condition.

1.8 address some of the consultees’ concerns.

The original submission has been altered to

2 CONSULTATIONS

2.1 Strategic Planning advise:-

Site History

The application site was included, in part, in the Consultative Draft Local Plan the site boundaries of which have not changed in the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. This site was identified in the CDLP for a total of 12 units.

A meeting with representatives of the Scottish Housebuilders Association took place in September 2000 to discuss the Housing Audit as required by NPPG3 at that time and to establish the effective house sites in the local plan. At this time the SHBA advised that sites LN40 and LN41 represented an overestimate for housing need in Torthorward and suggested that LN41 (application site) was likely to be ineffective.

On the basis of this advice, as clearly the inclusion of both sites would represent an oversupply, and recognising there was limited capacity in terms of servicing at Torthorwald, site LN41 (application site) was placed in the Finalised Local Plan as a long-term site.

Current Position

During the deposit of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan no objections were received requesting that site LN41 be allocated for development during the local plan period

The expansion of the application site boundaries beyond the allocated Local Plan site area on land to the south introduces further development on higher ground within the village. This area is within the inset boundary and not safeguarded from development, however there already is adequate provision of housing land within Torthorwald and this adds further loading to the sewage system. This expanded area also drives a road across the existing track believed locally to be a right of way. The development of this site would prejudice the development of the allocated local plan site within the plan period, because of servicing constraints.

2.2 Council’s Landscape Architect:-

a) The upper half of the site is on elevated sloping ground and will be clearly visible from the A709 to the south-west, and from the Collin- Tinwald Road and the High Road (between Torthorwald and Tinwald) to the west. It is therefore important that a low density of housing is accommodated, and the units proposed are single- storey. This has been achieved in part but there are remaining concerns about the overall housing density and the two-storey houses proposed, 20-22 units would be appropriate. b) Additional information is required on the planting specification, public areas and boundary treatments.

2.3 Combined Operations - Parks:- Amendments sought to provide a recreation area with play equipment central to the site have been provided.

2.4 Principal Roads Services Officer (Nithsda1e):-

a) Access onto C9n:- Appropriate widening of the carriageway from the site to the junction with the A709 Dumfries - Lockerbie Road with a 1.8m wide footway linking the site to the existing footway is proposed. Street lighting system along this route to link with the existing system should be provided with an extension of the 30mph speed restricted area. This will require the relocation of the speed IimiVde-restriction signage from its existing location. The C9n junction onto the A709 has restricted geometry and should be improved to the appropriate standard. Satisfactory visibility is available at the junction. b) Access onto C15n:- As indicated with previous applications I would not be in favour of further significant development along the route due to its restricted nature in terms of width and lack of footway provision. However the proposed development of 2 houses may not justify refusal on roads grounds. Satisfactory visibility is achievable at the points of access. c) SUDS:- No curtilage surface water from individual properties should be connected to any road surface water drain. All maintenance of any road drainage system outwith the public road boundary will require to be the responsibility of the developers or their successors and would be subject to a legal agreement with the Council. d) Internal layout:- The proposed layout is generally satisfactory. Amendments to provide refuse vehicle turning areas at the ends of the culs- de-sac are required with provision of service strips or footways adjacent to the carriageway. A turning area should be provide within plot 16 which is located directly opposite a road junction.

19 JANUARY 2005 COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE

2.4 - 3 -

2.5 Chief Constable:- No objections provided adequate visibility is achieved from both the new development and from the C9 onto the A709.

2.6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency:- No objections provided written assurance is received from Scottish Water that

a) The acceptance of foul drainage arising from the development will not cause premature operation of existing consented storm overflows or affect the operational capacity of Torthorwald sewage works. There has been one failure of Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s lower tier consent conditions within the last 12 months, suggesting that the works are struggling to cope with foul drainage from the village at present. b) Where connection to the sewage works is refused Scottish Environment Protection Agency would object to the provision of a private sewage treatment facility. c) Prior to planning permission being granted the details for the surface water treatment should be agreed. The layout of the development should include integral measures including swales, porous and permeable pavements etc. for the surface water treatment.

2.7 Scottish Water:- No objections, provided contact is made in respect of connection to the public sewer. At the present time there is capacity for the 27 units proposed, but no more. The implementation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System must be considered.

2.8 Environmental Health Manager:- No objections given the location of proposed site in relation to the sewage works, the size of the sewage works and the conclusions of the odour impact assessment.

2.9 Director of Education and Community Services:- there is currently spare capacity for children from this development and at other schools in the area.

2.1 0 Scottish Natural Heritage:- No objections.

2.1 1 Council’s Archaeologist:- No objections after carrying out a site visit.

3 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 1 with their grounds for objection in table 2.

Appendix 1 lists the 29 representors in table

3.2 A summary of the applicant‘s letter of support is included in Appendix 1

3.3 The Church of Scotland’s advice on the Glebe Land is included in Appendix 1.

4 REPORT

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that “Where, in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

4.2 The application falls to be considered against Dumfries and Galloway Structure Plan Policies D36 and E2 and Dumfries and District Local Plan Policies H3, Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Policies 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 37, 42, 57 and 60, and national policy and guidance (SPPI, SPP3 and PAN38) (see Appendix 2) are material considerations.

4.3 In consideration of this application there is both the principle for the development and detail design issues of the layout, house types and servicing of the site.

4.4 Scottish Executive advise that the aim of the planning system and development plans is to “provide a land use framework within which investment and development can take place with confidence.” Further, that “Development plans that meet these criteria will offer a sound basis for consistent decision making which is important for maintaining public and investor confidence” (SPPI paragraphs 26 and 28). With the publication of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan the Council has provided this framework and guidance directing prospective developers in Torthorwald to the Policy LN40 Glebe Land for 15-20 sites. To bring forward the application site identified as “reserved housing land” before the identified site undermines the Council’s development plan policies and is contrary to Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Policy 6 which states:-

“During the Plan period there will be a presumption against the development of those areas of land identified for long-term development, unless all allocated sites have been substantially developed, or are proven to be ineffective.”

Whilst the developer has submitted that the land is ineffective this is clearly countered by the Church of Scotland General Trustees’ statement that an application will be forthcoming by the end of 2004. No application has been received, although informal discussions have recently been held with the intending developer’s agent.

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE I 9 JANUARY 2005

- 4 -

4.5 Further, under Policy LN41 it is highlighted that the development of the application site will depend on the capacity of the sewage treatment works. This follows the advice included in PAN38 paragraph 38 which states that “Constraints imposed by lack of infrastructure and programme priorities will require to be taken fully into account in framing the housing land strategy”. Presently there is only sufficient capacity at the sewage treatment works for 27 sites in Torthorwald. If, planning permission was approved for the application site first, Policy LN40 - The Glebe Land would be ineffective, contrary to the guidance of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan policies.

4.6 No case has therefore been made for prejudicing the implementation of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Policy LN40. The principle for the development of the site is contrary to policy.

4.7 By expanding outwith the reserved housing land site into white land sites the applicant would further prejudice the implementation of policy LN40. It is therefore contrary to Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 17. It states that development will only be considered favourably where “it would not prejudice or restrict the development on an allocated or long-term site.”

4.8 At the time of the first submission the Church of Scotland General Trustees comments were unknown. In the meantime the developer sought to address the consultees comments and lodged amendments to deal with deficiencies. However, there are outstanding areas still to be resolved including:-

(a) House Types and Density - The site is visually obtrusive in the Regional Scenic Area and lies in a village where single storey properties predominate. Amended plans, changing the layout and density of the houses in the centre of the site with the submission of single storey properties would be appropriate in this location. The character of the development is very much suburban housing estate and is out of keeping with the existing character of the village. (b) A Detailed Landscape Plan - to address the sensitivity of the site in a Regional Scenic Area; (c) Right of Way - an alternative routelgreen corridor was sought to preserve the pedestrian link undisturbed but not achieved in the amended plan; and (d) Compliance with Scottish Environment Protection Agency consultation - Foul drainage arising from the development will not cause premature operation of existing consented storm overflows or affect the operational capacity of Torthorwald sewage works and the details of the Surface Urban Drainage System. This requirement

is to comply with Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 57, appendix 2.

4.10 The application site is visually exposed on the side of the hillside on the edge of Torthorwald. Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 7 requires that any development should have regard to the character and appearance, scale, density, massing and materials of the locality. The proposal both in density and house design fails to comply with this policy.

4.1 1 In conclusion, given the circumstances outlined here the application cannot be supported in terms of the emerging local plan. It should be considered as premature in respect of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan, not complying with General Policies 6 and 17 and is recommend for refusal.

5 RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Refuse on the following grounds:-

1 This proposal is considered to be premature in that if permission were granted it would prejudice the provisions of Policy LN40 of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan for Torthorwald and as such is contrary to General Policies 6 and 17 of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. 2 The proposed development would require major extensions and modifications to mains services and other facilities, which in advance of a comprehensive review of future planning policies for the Torthorwald, would be prejudicial to the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. 3 The site is in a prominent position in a Regional Scenic Area. The proposed development would appear in part conspicuous and visually intrusive on the edge of the village contrary to the provisions of Structure Plan Policy E2 and General Policy 7 of the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. 4 The incorporation of substantial 2 and 3 storey villas and extensive ground reprofiling will create a development of suburban estate character that would be out of keeping with the existing character of the village, contrary to the provisions of Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policies 7 and 9.

Appendix/


Table 1 Names Representors to first

Submission Torthorwald Community Council per the Secretary A M Cook, Trabeattie, Torthorwald X Scotways, the Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society, 24 Annandale Street, Edinburgh EH7 4AN X Beattie, Mr & Mrs J, Appin, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PS X Bearhop, Mr & Mrs J, Linn Banks, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR X Bigham, Mr Ian W, Schiehallion, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PS X Bigham, Mrs J T, Schiehallion, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PS X Burlison, Mr Philip, Alindon, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfires, DGI 3PS X Caven, E E, Morviesta, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR

X Caven, D I, Morviesta, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR

X Collins, Ms Mary, Torthorwald School House, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR X Cowan, R D, Tulach Ard, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR X Dunnington, Mr & Mrs A, Greenways, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PS X Halliday, Mr & Mrs, Hawk Lea, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR X Hyslop, Mrs Mabel, Beaulycraig, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PS X Lockhart, Ms Susan, The Coppice, High Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X Lowther, Louise, Glenclaire, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X Lowther, Paul, Glenclaire, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X McAdam, Mrs M, 5 Linns Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PU McMurdo, Mr & Mrs, Torwest, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR x

1

Representors to Representors to second submission third submission

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X

I

ul I

N b

Table 1 Names Representors to first Representors to Representors to

Meadows, Mr & Mrs W H, Craigmore, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DGI 3PR X X Mitchell, M D, Loganbank, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X X Mitchell, Mrs J, Loganbank, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X X Murray, Mr Derek J, The Coppice, High Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X X X Murray, Ms S, The Coppice, High Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X Paridge, Mr Kenneth, Torthorwald Schoolhouse, Torthorwald, Dumfries, DG1 3PR X X X Wallace, Mr A, Still Water, Linns Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X Watson, Mr & Mrs, Kerrera, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X Wilson, Mr & Mrs, Kerrera, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X Wyllie, Mr Duncan S, Cecebe, Shieldhill Road, Torthorwald, Dumfries X

Submission second submission third submission

I

5) I

-u 0 (D 3 a F A

Table 2 Representation

Policy Under Local Government Policy Plan Ref LN41 (application site) - This area has been identified as a site for “Beyond the Plan Period.” This being the secondary area of proposed land for development, it should not be considered for permission at this point in time. The plan is a 5-15 year plan and as development is being pursued in the Glebe Land, this area should be left until beyond the plan period and planning permission refused. Only after these are exhausted and near completion should LN41 High Road be developed. No reason has been given why this land has been chosen instead of the “designated housing area” elsewhere in the village. Under Local Government Policy Plan Ref LN41 - “indicates for the period beyond the plan that the area would consist of no more than 15 houses.”

The six houses proposed on the unidentified land should be refused as any infill or gap site can only have a maximum of two houses built and must be fronted onto a main road. The area in the proposal, south of, and including the ROW, is not earmarked for development in the Local Plan, so should not be ranked as a priority housing area. The rules relating to gap sites are that only two houses in a gap, the area must be of brownfield and normally frontage not backland development. This area shows six houses, in an area of Greenfield and no frontal to main road. The area proposed on the application appends to an area designated as having environmental significance and therefore permission should be refused. They also incorporate a road conveniently located apparently for future ingress into area 43. The Community Council believes that the local requirement is for housing affordable by relatively young families, rather than houses within the financial ranae of onlv the more elderlv. Landscape Impact Under Local Government Policy Plan Ref 42 - Torthorwald lies within a Regional Scenic Area. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the scenic value of the area being intrusive in this sensitive landscape, and will not blend into the village. The land is elevated and commands a vista through the valley and beyond.

Sites numbered 25, 26 & 27 could be deleted to preserve the Scenic Ridge, to grant permission for a development of this size and design would nullify this designation.

1

Development Plan Policy

Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy LN41

Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy LN41

Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 9


Structure Plan Policy D5 Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policv 20

Structure Plan Policy E2 Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 42

Comment

Agree, no adequate justification provided to justify an approval.

LN41 as a “reserved housing land” provides no guidance on housing allocation. Agree, in part. Policy 9 defines infill sites as “will generally be less than 0.25 ha and usually only be capable of 1 + 2 houses.

Not applicable - adjacent to.

No policy direction given for affordable housing on this site.

Negotiations have been carried out to address these concerns. The third submission fails to comply in part. The 2-storey properties proposed in the lower areas of the site with the associated layout and density is inappropriate.


If developed, the hillside would seriously detract from the appearance of the village. Such a large and immediate new build scheme would be incompatible with the present village. This development is more suited to town centre development than a rural development.

The large number and the type of housing proposed would have a significant detrimental effect on the community Density In February 1999, during the preparation of the Local Plan for Nithsdale, various sites in Torthorwald were considered for inclusion, and two sites were recommended. Site 1 Glebe Land and Site 2 Land North of Tinwald Road. The site at Glebe Land being considerably larger. The consultative document presented to the Community Council clearly states that the gross capacity at these sites is 30. As the sites are not of equal size, it would have been reasonable for residents to assume that a development of approximately 12 houses was the maximum that would be allowed on the land North of Tinwald Road. On the basis of this information, residents did not object to the inclusion of this land, had we been told in fact 21 houses (LN41 area excluding white land areas) would be considered objections would have been made. According to Policy LN40: Glebe Land Sections 1-4 the allocation appears to be 15-20 houses. As this site is quite a bit bigger than LN41, having 22 houses on the smaller LN41 would not fit in with the existing character and layout of the village. As the developer proposes to build a further 6 houses outwith the housing policy area, then surely this would be over development, ref. Page 12 Section 5 General Policy 8 (Appendix 2).

The reduction by one house does not allay previous concerns.

So-called internal road layout “improvements” do not alter the fact that the overall appearance of the development is not acceptable. Comparison of the two sites suggests that if an allocation of 15-20 is correct for LN40 then LN41 should not exceed 12-1 5. The developer’s plan, excluding the unallocated areas, indicates 22 (21 in recent submission) (a 50% increase). No longer be a village but a small town set in the countryside with an increase in housing from 85 houses at the moment to a possible 150 houses in total. Proposal would increase the housing by 35% and that is before Glebe Land has been counted in the equation. This proposed primary site would increase the housing by another 55%.

2

Development Plan Policy Structure Plan Policy E2 Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 42

NIA

Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Policies LN40 & LN41

Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Policies LN40 & LN41 N/A

Comment

An appropriate standard of development for this site can be achieved where Development Plan policy guidance is incorporated.

No comment.

In the absence of an allocation for this site amendments have been sought to provide an appropriate standard for the site. Density issues are outstanding particularly in the middle of the site.

An extrapolation cannot be made in thk way.

Within the Local Plan process one site LN40 was allocated for 15-20 houses and the other a reserved housing land.

I

03 I


Lavout and House Desiqn Local Plan LN41 policy requires that house types be 1 % storey or split level in the top part of the site. Proposal goes for 2-storey or split-level throughout. The split- level elevations are, in essence, 2 storeys. 2 storey housing, allied to the density, would be out of place in this setting. 99% of the existing houses are bungalows. 10 to 15 houses, built in this area within the last fifty years, were not allowed to consider including dormer windows, let alone double storey construction, it would seem very inequitable to permit this developer the construction suggested.

Type and size of housing proposed is inappropriate for Torthorwald village. Policy LN40 notes, “The use of non-intrusive materials and generous landscaping will be required for development on its periphery.” The landscaping would appear to consist of wide roads, lighting and pavements. The inability of the design to be in keeping with the surrounding area is very noticeable and planning should not be granted.

The proposals also talk about native shrubs and ash and oak trees of 2-3 metres in height being planted at the boundary. These trees will be close to houses and next to existing trees. Please confirm that the proposals are in line with the British Standard for ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ with particular emphasis on existina trees and DroDerties. Open Space Proposals show a small recreational area for the under 5s which is too small. It should be designed and re-sited to reflect the requirements of nearby properties.

Will there be play equipment and who will be responsible for it? Riqht of Way General Policy 37 states that the Planning Authority will keep open any Public Right of Way, if approved vehicles would be crossing the right of way which is the only safe traffic-free way to walk between the Shieldhill Road and High to Tinwald.

The plans to put a hard surface on parts of an existing green path and to grub out hedgerows will destroy the character of the right of way, it is very unfortunate when existing paths, used by locals are absorbed and changed to something akin to a tarred pavement. Is there no better alternative that the developer can use for vehicles to ensure the right of way is retained and unaffected.

3

Development Plan Policv

Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Policy LN41

NIA

NIA




Comment

Agree, amendments were sought but only achieved in part.

No Council documents are available to substantiate this. However, on this hillside no 2-storey houses have been recen tlv built . Agree, in part, amendments sought.

The Council’s Landscape Architect has negotiated some amendments - but outstanding issues remain.

Combined Services - Parks are satisfied that the proposal meets Council policy and their requirements for adoption.

The applicant was not prepared to provide a dedicated alternative route through the development to avoid the crossing of the public right of way. The proposal complies with policy in that the existing right of way will not be blocked by the proposed access roads crossing its length in 2 places.


The route should be safeguarded within the development during and after construction. It would be ideal if the route could be improved, by signposting and environmental improvements.

If the area zoned for housing on the North side was adhered to it would fully preserve the “Right of Way” and the Area of High Landscape value.

The Right of Way is designated for hoof, horn and foot only; not for motorised vehicles.

Question the legal right of the developer to use a road finish where is crosses a Right of Way?

A development at Marjoribanks, Lochmaben straddles a Right of Way and is beset with problems.

It will become a thoroughfare to the play park. Services Under Local Government Policy Plan Ref LN41 & General Policy 6 consideration must be taken regarding the capacity of the existing sewage treatment works. Sewage works were completed in 1992 for a maximum of 20 additional houses. Since then 3 new houses have been completed on Shieldhill Road. How can the existing Sewage Works cater for the additional houses of the proposed development? Under Local Government Policy Plan Ref LN41 -the site would have to be drained of all surface water by gravity to Torthorwald Burn by a reed bed system with outfall to the burn. This area is prone to being decidedly marshy and lies below the level of the burn and outfall would be inconsistent to current policy. On this objection planning should be refused. Under Local Government Policy Plan Ref LN41 - road-widening measures to include a pavement would be required.

There are two water mains running along the side and these mains are working below pressure, always bursting especially due to increase in traffic in the spring and summer.

Services cross the plot proposed to be occupied by House 19. Suitable alterations/protections would be required.

A

Development Plan Policy Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policy 37


N/A

Comment

The applicant was not prepared to provide a dedicated alternative route through the development to avoid the crossing of the public right of way. The proposal complies with policy in that the existing right of way will not be blocked by the proposed access roads crossing its length in 2 places.

Agree, the existing capacity is limited. An approval would prejudice the development of the allocated site LN40.

Conditions can be included to address these issues.

Conditions can be included to address these issues.

I

A

0 I


Who will meet costs of road widening, street lighting and water and sewage for new site?

Who will be responsible for upkeep of boundary hedges and landscaping features?

Local amenities and infrastructure are non-existent, the main amenity being Torthorwald School and it will close in 2006. The access from this proposed development would be in a blind gap area from the Tinwald Village side and as such dangerous safety concern would arise.

The present junction of the Tinwald road with the A709 is unsafe, increased use of the junction, as proposed, would require more than a mere improvement to the junction. Visibility is poor and unless the junction is improved considerably (including visibility along the A709) would expect fatal accidents to occur. Education If the school at Torthorwald remains open, there could be up to 25 further children walking via Shieldhill Road, which is narrow and has no pavements. If the school is closed there will be substantial extra traffic on the "school run" to Collin and elsewhere .#

Will this planning application affect the pending closure of Torthorwald School?

How would the Local Government Policy Plan cope with a heavy influx of children from this proposed development with no school?

In an area of very few local amenities and the school closing at the end of 2005 or 2006 this proposal should not be considered? Environment The new development is detrimental to the wildlife in the area, i.e. destruction of existing hedges, trees and water features Archaeolonv From an aerial photograph c.1979 there are straight mounds of earth running from Cecebe, which is next door to us, running down the field and other mounds of the same character are visible in the area which has been earmarked as of "environmental import". These mounds can also be seen by the naked eye when looking across the field. 'Could they be part of the defences of the Castle to protect the population at that time as the village lay on the Shieldhill side of the highway, and only the Castle and later the Church and Manse on the other.

5

Development Plan Policy NIA

NIA

NIA Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan General Policies 2 & 65

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

Comment

Developer

Future landowners

No comment The road widening improvements at the two junctions comply with policy.

See Director of Education & Community Services consultation response.

Spare capacity for children from this development is available at this time and at other school in the area

Scottish Natural Heritage - no objections No known records and after carrying out a site visit (no objections) - see Council's Archaeologist consultation response.

- 1 2 -

Appendix 1

1) Border Homes in support of their application

Site LN 40 is currently ineffective on the following grounds:-

a) The Church of Scotland General Trustees have confirmed in writing that their landholdings do not include the tongue of land within the highlighted site LN 40 which extends to the A709 and it is understood they have been unable to acquire thi’s tongue of land. It is effectively landlocked. The Church of Scotland General Trustees have also confirmed in writing that the Glebe Land is not currently available for sale and can give no indication of if andlor when they may market the site. b) It appears from a visual inspection of the A709 Trunk road frontage that it could be difficult to achieve a satisfactory access design, which complies with current Scottish Executive Trunk Road Design Standards.

For the following reasons Site LN 41 should be promoted for development in advance of LN 40:

a) Border Homes has secured the ownership of the site and of sufficient land out with the site to enable the widening of the High Road, Torthorwald from the site to the A709 and meet the requirements set out in the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. b) The development proposals contained within the planning application demonstrate that appropriate cognisance has been given to the topography of the site, road layouts, house types, site layout, landscaping and open space issues and effectively deal with both the site specific comments and the General Policies in the Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan. c) The site can be fully serviced and allowance has been made to incorporate SUDS to deal with surface water drainage. d) e)

The site will provide marketable housing. The site will be well within a 5-year period.

Note: Advice has been sought on the feasibility of developer contributions being made to the upgrade Torthorwald Sewage Works in order to service this site to allow the development of both Local Plan sites. No response has been received.

2) advise that:-

The Church of Scotland General Trustees

a) The Glebe Land at Policy LN40 is in the ownership of the General Trustees and I can advise that we are currently in negotiation with a

developer, who has connections with the area, for development of the Glebe site. b) The small tongue of land lying between the A709 and the main block of the Glebe is owned by the adjoining proprietor, Mr Oliphant. However, the “ransom” aspect of this land has been settled and there will be no bar to development of the Glebe from this quarter. c) The developers firmly intend to submit their planning application by the end of this year. The application will be based on the allocation as specified in the Local Plan, namely 15 to 20 houses and taking into account the Site Guidance in respect of low density and high amenity level.


2.4 - 1 3 -

Appendix 2

1 Structure Plan Policy

Policy D36 Design of Development

The Council expects development proposals to take into account:-

1. siting, scale, form, massing and layout in relation to townscape and landscape setting;

2. local building styles; and

3. the access needs of all groups.

Further policy guidance on the siting and design of development will be provided in Local Plans.

Policy E2 : Regional Scenic Areas

The siting and design of development should respect the special nature of the area. Development within, or which would have a significant impact of Regional Scenic Areas (RSAs), may be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:-

1. the landscape character and scenic interest for which the area has been designated would not be adversely affected; or

2. there is a specific need for the development at that location which could not be located in a less sensitive area.

2 Dumfries and District Local Plan

Policy H3 : Restriction on Houses in the Co u n t rys ide

Residential development in the countryside outwith Dumfries and the villages designated above for the housing sites and infill development will only be considered in locations identified by the Houses in the Countryside Policy.

3 Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan

General Policy 2 : Development Considerations

As part of the assessment of development proposals, including those on sites identified in the Plan, developers will be required to satisfy the Planning Authority with regards to their proposals in terms of all of the following: -

(a) access, ground conditions and stability, contamination, foul and surface water drainage and water supply; (b) traffic generation onto the adjacent road network; (c) flooding; (see Policy 58 on Flood Risk and Development); (d) environmental impact.

When assessing planning applications, the Planning Authority will take into account the provisions of any site guidance, site specifications, or development brief as set out in Section 3 of the Plan. Where further information is required, the Planning Authority may apply the provisions of Article 13 of Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 or Article 4(3) in respect of outline applications.

General Policy 6: Land Reserved for Long Term Development

During the Plan period there will be a presumption against the development of those areas of land identified for long-term development, unless all allocated sites have been substantially developed, or are proven to be ineffective.

General Policy 7: Siting and Design

The Council as Planning Authority will require development to: -

(a) have regard to the character and appearance, scale, density, massing and materials, of the building, group of buildings or adjacent area, of which it will forms a part; and

(b) retain and, where appropriate, enhance important physical and landscape features which contribute to the quality of the local environment having regard to the Local Biodiversity Action Plan;

(c) have no material adverse effect on the local landscape character, avoiding prominent ridge lines or other visually sensitive sites; and

(d) take into account the guidance and advice set out in the Landscape Assessment Study; and

(e) comply with the Design Guidance set out in Appendix 1 ; and

(f) where appropriate, have regard to the principles of PAN 46 - “Planning for Crime Prevention”; and

(9) have regard to the replacement of any trees which are unavoidably lost as a result of development; and


- 1 4 -

(h) have regard to the need for energy conservation and efficiency in the design, orientation and layout of the site or buildings.

General Policy 9: Small Scale lnfill Development

Within the settlement boundaries defined on Inset Maps small-scale infill development will be considered favourably where all of the following tests are met:-

a) it would not conflict with adjoining or adjacent land uses; b) it would conform with or enhance the inherent character and layout of the locality; c) the development would not constrain the potential to develop any adjacent site which is allocated or identified for development purposes in the Plan; d) it would not result in overdevelopment of the site.

General Policy 17: Residential Development on Unallocated Sites

Within settlement boundaries proposals for residential development on sites not allocated for residential development will only be considered favourably if :-

(a) it is not of a scale to adversely affect the overall development strategy of the Plan and any related service provision; and (b) it would not prejudice or restrict the development of an allocated or long term site; and (c) the proposals conform to tests “a)” to “d)” of Policy 9 on Small Scale lnfill Development

General Policy 37: Public Rights of Way

The Planning Authority will continue to assert, keep open and free from obstruction, any Public Right of Way and will continue to investigate alleged Rights of Way in association with Community Councils, landowners and interested parties. The Planning Authority will not normally grant planning permission to development proposals which would result in the loss of a Right of Way unless a satisfactory alternative route or mitigating measures can be secured.

General Policy 42: Regional Scenic Areas

Regional Scenic Areas are defined on the Proposals Map. The Planning Authority will assess development proposals within the Regional Scenic Areas using the criteria set out in Structure Plan Policy E2.

General Policy 57: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)

The Council as Planning Authority will encourage the use of SUDS and other appropriate innovative methods such as reed beds, as a means of treating surface water run-off from development sites.

The Council will use conditions and/or Section 75 Agreements to ensure that the long-term maintenance of any SUDS scheme is secure.

Policy LN40 : Glebe Land (15 - 20 allocated)

The identification of a significant amount of housing development land is consistent with the community’s aspirations and the village’s location in close proximity to Dumfries.

Torthorwald lies within a Regional Scenic Area so the use of non-intrusive materials and generous landscaping will be required for development on its periphery. The strip of Church of Scotland land which might have provided access to this site from the A709 has been developed. Castleview Terrace/Linns Road is not of an appropriate standard to provide access which will require to be taken from the A709 at a location and to a standard which meets the Council’s requirements. The 30mph zone will require to be extended if the site is developed. The site can be drained by gravity. The site sits above the village but it has a backdrop of rising ground which has benefited from recent tree planting. While it is accepted that this site could represent longer term development potential beyond the Plan period, a comprehensive proposal for its full development would require to be agreed with the Council as part of any application for planning permission and this should include means of access, structure planting and layout plan with plot levels and house types to demonstrate that a high level of amenity could be achieved both within and viewed from outwith the site.

Policy LN41 : Land North of High Road (reserved housing land)

Identification of this site will provide for a continuity of housing land supply, beyond the Plan period, taking into consideration the capacity of the existing sewage treatment works.

Landscape issues as Policy LN40 apply. The development of this site will require additional land outwith the site to enable the provision of a footway along the length of the High Road to the A709. The development of the site will depend on the capacity of the sewage treatment works. While the north


2.4 - 1 5 -

east part of the site is elevated it is screened from the south approaches to the village by rising ground. To protect the amenity of the adjacent houses development on the north east part of the site should be single storey or split-level.


report nithsdale area regulatory committeeegenda.dumgal.gov.uk/aksdumgal/images/att19216.pdf ·...

Documents