THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL
AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE, ROSS & CROMARTY
6th FEBRUARY 2007
06/00836/OUTRC
AGENDA
ITEM
3.6
_____________________
REPORT
No.
RP 015/07
REPORT BY J FARQUHAR, AREA PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS MANAGER
SUMMARY:
Committee is invited to consider the following report and recommendation.
Recommend REFUSAL of development as submitted.
1.0
PROPOSALS
1.1
DEVELOPMENT: Erection of House & Garage (Outline)
1.2
LOCATION: Land To West Of, Newton House, Avoch
1.3
APPLICANT: Mr J M Matheson
1.4
SITE DESCRIPTION: The site comprises 0.9 acre/0.4 hectare of open hillside above the
village of Avoch. The site has a backdrop of mature trees, but sits on the crest of the hill.
Access will be taken from the public road which serves Knockmuir, Newton and Insch and will
follow the field boundary.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
2.1
ADVERTISEMENT:
Section 34 Contrary to Development Plan (Potential) Expiry Date 6th October 2006
2.2
REPRESENTATIONS: None
__________________________________________________________________________________
3.0
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION: The following is a summary of the comments submitted in
support of their application.
• An operational needs assessment has been prepared for the farm business which comprises
of both Limekilns and Newton Farms. The assessment places emphasis on the need for a
house on the Newton Farm part of the unit.
• There are no farm buildings or dwellings on Newton Farm which are either owned or
leased by the applicant. As advised in the Operational Needs Assessment, Newton Farm is
located more than 2 miles from the main steading of the business unit, which is at
Limekilns. This distance and heavily wooded intervening land prevent easy and frequent
observation of life stock on Newton Farm to ensure the high standard of animal welfare
and security required especially in looking after the suckler cows and calves.
•
•
•
•
In the past Broadland Properties Ltd would not sell or rent the Newton Farmhouse steading
to Mr Matheson. We are aware that Broadland would not sell the Limekilns Farm to Mr
Matheson unless he gave up Newton Farmhouse and steading. These properties were
retained by Broadland’s for development purposes. The steading was sold and converted
by another development company Glenglass Developments.
There are no permissions (not time expired) on an part of the business unit from dwellings
that have not been taken up or developed..
The house known as Newton Villa, although adjacent to land rented and farmed by the
applicant, was never part of the Newton Farm unit. Mr Matheson previously owned and
occupied this property. This was quite a large dwelling and Mr Matheson had to sell this
following the death of his wife as the house became too difficult for him and his daughter
to manage. They are currently living in rented accommodation in Fortrose.
The Plot sold for the erection of the property known as Newton House had to be sold in
1992 by the business in order to purchase Limekilns Farm and was common practice on
most Broadland or former Eagle Star farms at the time. Also at this time, the Planning
Authority’s Housing in the Countryside Policy was less restrictive, in that it encouraged the
erection of single well sited dwellings.
In addition to the above, we can advise that the applicant would be prepared to enter into a
Section 75 Agreement in order to restrict development of the remainder of the land owned
by the business.
(Full text of letter(s) available on request from Area Planning & Building Standards Manager)
__________________________________________________________________________________
4.0
CONSULTATIONS:
Director of Planning & Development (Archaeology): No archaeological condition requested.
Avoch & Killen Community Council: We have no objection to outline planning being granted
for the erection of a house and garage. Mr Matheson has stated that he sold his large house
because it had become too difficult to manage. We imagine the new build to be a modest
dwelling.
Director of Planning & Development (Policy): The proposal for a house falls within the
hinterland around towns policy area and as such is subject to the provisions of the Housing in
the Countryside policy. The Development Plan Policy Guideline (DPPG), March 2006
provides the most recent approved guidance in respect of criteria that applications should be
adjudged against.
The applicant has indicated a requirement for the development in respect of an agricultural
justification. My understanding, however is that the applicant has sold a residential property
that had served as his home. In regard to the Housing in the Countryside policy application,
Section 3 para 1 relates to land management criteria. For any proposal in this respect applicants
must demonstrate that
• There is no potential to use existing accommodation in the area i.e.
renovate or replace an existing house building;
•
There are no existing permissions (not time expired) for dwellings that
have not been taken up or developed;
•
There is no evidence of houses or plots having been previously sold off
from the farm holding; and
•
There is no land on the farm holding that has been identified within an
existing settlement
The policy statement also indicates that personal preferences of applicants are not a
material consideration and that if the choice is made to sell an existing property this
should be taken into account when meeting the justification criteria.
TEC Services (Transport):No objections provided that the applicant can confirm his ability to
provide the required visibility splays of 2.5m X 90m. No further comments offered in response
to the revised plans which were submitted by applicant directly to TEC Services.
Scottish Water: No objections.
• There are no known public sewers in the vicinity of the proposed development. It is
advisable that any septic tank should be sited in such a manner as to allow easy access for
emptying by tanker.
__________________________________________________________________________________
5.0
POLICY BACKGROUND
5.1
STRUCTURE PLAN – Adopted March, 2001.
POLICIES:
Policy G1 - Conformity with strategy – The Council will support developments, having regard
to the Plan’s sustainable objectives, which promote and enhance the social, economic and
environmental wellbeing of the people of Highland.
Policy G2 - Design for sustainability – Developments which are judged to be significantly
detrimental in terms of the listed criteria shall not accord with the Structure Plan.
Policy H3 - Housing in the Countryside - Housing development will generally be within existing
and planned new settlements. In the hinterland of towns, and subsequently defined in Local
Plans, new housing and conversions of non-traditional buildings in the open countryside will not
be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated that it is required for the management of the land and
related family purposes. Exceptions may also be made for social housing providers in meeting
demonstrated local affordable housing needs that cannot be met within settlements. Elsewhere,
housing in the countryside of an appropriate location, scale, design and materials may be
acceptable where it supports communities experiencing difficulty in maintaining population and
services. In crofting townships, new housing will need to respect the existing pattern of
development.
5.2
LOCAL PLAN
Black Isle Local Plan- Alteration No2 - Adopted September 1996
Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan – Intention to adopt – October 2006
POLICIES:
Adopted Plan: RS1.3- A strong presumption will be maintained against the development of
houses in the following areas. Exceptions will only be made where a house is essential for the
management of land, related family and occupational reasons. Restrictions on the subsequent
occupancy of such houses will be enforced. Adherence to the principles of good siting and
design will be required in such cases.
1.3.1. All of the Black Isle, except those areas where other policies are specified.
Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan Intention to adopt
GSP10 (Hinterland Around Towns) : The Council will presume against housing in the open
countryside of the Hinterland around the towns of Muir of Ord, Dingwall, Alness, Invergordon
and Tain, the intervening land in the development corridor and across the whole of the Black
Isle. Exceptions will only be made where:
• A house is essential for the management of land and associated family purposes ( See
Development Plan Policy guideline)
• Social housing is required to meet demonstrated local affordable needs that cannot be
met within settlements
•
Development involves a conversion of a traditional building or redevelopment of a
ruinous dwelling that currently exists to wall head level.
Where exceptions are justified, all proposals should indicate suitable drainage (GSP2) and
other servicing, avoid conflict with natural and cultural heritage interests and hazards, and be
suitably sited and designed.
Background Policy BP2: The Council will permit development unless this would be likely to
have a significantly adverse effect on, or be significantly adversely affected by, the features for
which the area had been designated. - feature site is covered by Civil Aviation safeguard area
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINE: Housing in the
Countryside - June 2006
Exceptions are:
1. Land management or family purposes related to the management of the land (retired
farmers and their spouses).
2. Agricultural Management (including functional and financial test).
3. Croft Land Management.
4. Provision of housing associated with an existing or new rural business.
5. The replacement of an existing dwelling which does not meet the requirements for modern
living and where the costs of upgrading are not justified on economic or environmental
grounds (subject to the existing dwellings being demolished).
6. The conversion or reuse of a traditional non residential building, where the building is
substantially complete, including having walls to walls head level.
7. Derelict land which have ceased to be required for the original purpose and where
conversion to residential use would bring about an environmental benefit subject to
appropriate design and siting.
5.3
PREVIOUS DECISIONS:
04/00126/OUTRC
Erection of House & Garage (Outline) Withdrawn 7th September 2006
05/00459/FULRC
Erection of House & Garage (Detail) Withdrawn 27th May 2005
__________________________________________________________________________________
6.0
PLANNING APPRAISAL
6.1
Planning permission is sought in principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse. The site forms
part of the grazing land of Newton Farm. Access to the site, which is located at the crest of the
hill, will be taken from the minor public road.
Policy: Interpretation of the Councils Development Plan Policy Guidelines (DPPG) regarding
Housing in the countryside (see paragraph 5.2 above) is central to the determination of the
application. Structure Plan policy H3 presumes against sporadic housing in the countryside, the
DPPG’s allow for an exception to be made where the need for the house can be clearly
demonstrated. With respect to any proposals for a new house associated with land management
activities the applicant must demonstrate through a sequential approach that there is a clear
justification. It is important to stress that the DPPGs also highlight the fact that personal
preferences or financial circumstances of the applicant or any other individual are not material
planning matters.
6.2
6.2.1 With respect to the information, submitted by the applicant, which details the current working
practices of the farm business. There is evidence to indicate that the workload at Newton and
Limekilns Farms equates to 2.3 labour units. The business is operated by Mr. Newton Snr, the
applicant and his son.
6.2.2 As regards the potential to use existing accommodation , the applicant has indicated that there
are no buildings on the portion of Newton Farm under his ownership and that the steading
building at Limekilns is in use and therefore not available to convert. The applicant has also
stated that it is not in a suitable location to oversee the livestock which are kept at Newton
Farm.
6.2.3 The applicant has confirmed that a number of plots have been sold off from both Newton and
Limekiln farms. These consents were sought to allow the applicants farm business to purchase
Limekilns Farm from Broadlands Properties Ltd. The council also operated a less restrictive
housing in the countryside policy in the early 1990’s. These previous consents have all been
taken up and therefore there are no existing permissions which could be developed.
6.3
Services: The applicant has demonstrated that the site can be serviced although as with all
current development he will required to seek separate consents from Scottish Water to connect
into the public water supply. A private septic tank will be required given that there are no
known sewers in the vicinity. Given this requirement there will be a need to ensure that the
access track in suitable for services vehicles. The access track will require to negotiate the
steep hillside up to the site. Advice from TEC Services (Roads) suggests that the gradient of
the access track should be not greater than 1:16 over the first 5 metres and thereafter no greater
than 1:10. Given the gradient of the hillside in order to achieve a suitable gradient for the road
the access will, in my opinion, have a significant impact on the landscape
6.4
Representations: None
6.5
Conclusion: In considering this application I would draw Members attention to the planning
history of the site. The applicant has previously lodged two applications for the erection of a
dwellinghouse. In August 2004 an outline application was considered by committee. This
application was in respect of a retirement house for the applicant who indicated that his
existing house was no longer manageable due to its size. The application was recommended for
refusal. The committee expressed sympathetic consideration of the case and deferred the
application to allow negotiation of a pre-emption clause to be pursued, which would allow the
house to be retained as local housing stock if it was no longer required by the applicant
successors and heirs. The negotiations reached an impasse and the application was formally
withdrawn. Whilst the negotiations were ongoing a full/detailed application for a house on the
site was lodged. Given that the outline consent had yet to be formally determined the second
detailed application was withdrawn on the advice of the Planning Service.
6.5.1 Also during the period of negotiation the applicant chose to sell the house he owned and
occupied. This property, known as Newton Villa was built by Mr. Matheson in the late 1970’s.
It is situated immediately adjacent to Newton Farm and therefore provided a perfect location
for overseeing the daily farming practices on Newton Farm.
6.5.2 The decision of the applicant to sell his existing property cannot be overlooked in the
consideration of this application. Notwithstanding that the applicant has been able to
demonstrated that in terms of workload the business requires the presence of at least two
employees. It is apparent that the personal preferences of the applicant, which are clearly to
downsize his accommodation, are the significant driving force behind both this application and
the application lodge in 2004.
6.5.3 I am therefore not persuaded that the evidence submitted by the applicant can be the sole
consideration in determining the application. Rather it is clear that the applicant has crafted the
current situation in his favour by disposing of Newton Villa. This decision, based on Mr.
Matheson’s personal desire for an alternative style of house has a significant bearing on the
determination of the application.
6.5.4 Had Mr. Matheson not sold Newton Villa he would continue to live in a house which would
serve Newton Farm. I therefore cannot support an application for a new house when the
actions of the applicant have lead to his current housing situation. I respectfully recommend
that consent be refused for the following reasons. Finally, I would draw Members attention to
the concerns expressed in paragraph 6.3 above about the impact the access to the site would
have on the hillside.
__________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE for the Following Reasons:
1.
It is contested that a sequential approach for a dwellinghouse has not been demonstrated as
required through the Councils Development Plan Policy Guidelines (Housing in the
Countryside) in that the personal preferences and aspirations of the applicant, are the basis
behind and the motivation for the application. Consequently the proposals are contrary to
Structure Plan Policy H3 and Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan Intention to Adopted: GSP10
in that the site is located within the Hinterland around Inverness and is outwith any defined
settlement or housing group.
2.
The application is contrary to Policy G2 – Design for Sustainability, contained in the adopted
Structure Plan as the development will impact on the landscape and scenery of the area.
3.
Approval of this development would set an undesirable precedent making it difficult for the
Planning Authority to resist similar proposals in the future, undermining the Council’s adopted
and emerging development plan policies.
SIGNATURE:
DESIGNATION:
AREA PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS MANAGER
DATE
29 January 2007
AUTHOR:
Erica McArthur/EMRIRC
Telephone: 01349 864991
LOCAL COUNCILLOR:
Billy Barclay
The above report does not rely to any material extent on any document other than those
identified in the report.
Background Papers:
Reports/06/00836/OUTRC