Fife Planning Review Body
FPRB Reference: J8.36.140
Review Decision Notice
______________________________________________________________
Decision by Fife Planning Review Body (the FPRB)





Site address: Forth House, Newburn, Leven
Application for review by Mr David Paterson against the decision by an appointed
officer of Fife Council
Application 13/00555/FULL for planning permission for the erection of a single storey
dwellinghouse with integral garage
Application Drawings: FC Ref 13/00555/FULL - 01 Location Plan ; FC Ref
13/00555/FULL - 02 Block Plan, Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan; FC Ref
13/00555/FULL - 03 Supporting Statement
No site inspection took place
Date of Decision Notice: 18th November, 2013
_________________________________________________________________________
Decision
The FPRB upholds the determination reviewed by them and refuses Planning
Permission for the reasons outlined below in section 4.0.
1.0
Preliminary
1.1
This Notice constitutes the formal decision notice of the Local Review Body as
required by the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local
Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
1.2
The above application for planning permission was considered by the FPRB at its
meeting on the 21st October 2013. The Review Body was attended by Councillor
Dorothea Morrison (Chair), Councillor Bill Connor, Councillor David Mogg and
Councillor Jim Young.
2.0
Proposal
2.1
The application was for a detached single storey dwellinghouse on a sloping field
next to a converted steading and farmhouse at Newburn. The site is located within
an area of countryside identified as a Local Landscape Area within the Adopted St
Andrews and East Fife Local Plan (2012). A new vehicular access would be
constructed through the field to the north which would connect with the existing
access road which serves Forth House. This access road joins the Q34 which in
turn links with the A915.
-2-
3.0
Reasoning
3.1
The determining issues in this review were the principle of developing a house in the
countryside, the impact on road safety and the design of the proposed single storey
dwellinghouse. The FPRB considered the terms of the Development Plan which
comprises the Approved TAYplan (2012) and the Adopted St Andrews and East Fife
Local Plan (2012). The FPRB were content that the TAYplan is a strategic document
and as such offered little policy context relevant to the assessment of this review.
The FPRB were also aware of the general national policy with respect to rural
development contained within the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) as well as (a) the
government advice on the design and location of housing in the countryside PAN44 Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape (1994) and PAN 72 - Housing
in the Countryside (2005) and (b) Fife Council’s Planning Customer Guidelines on
Housing Development in the Countryside (2010) and Transportation Development
Guidelines.
3.2
The primary issue in this case related to whether the development of a house at this
location would comply with the Development Plan policies that may support
residential development outwith settlement boundaries. Policy E1 of the Adopted
Local Plan provides that outwith settlement boundaries development can only be
supported where it accords with Policies E15 to E29. The FPRB considered Policies
E15 and E16 of the Adopted Local Plan to be of particular relevance to the review
proposal. These Policies address the range of developments that may be
acceptable in a countryside location. In relation to Policy E15, the FPRB noted that
the proposals were not supported by any of the criteria under (a)-(g) but noted that
criteria (h) supports housing development which is supported by Policy E16. The
FPRB therefore considered the various criteria listed in Policy E16 that supports
housing in the countryside. The FPRB determined that the proposed development
did not meet any of the criteria set out in the policy. It was not required for
agriculture, horticulture, woodland or countryside uses generally. Specifically with
regard to part (c) of Policy E16, the FPRB did not consider that the existing steading
building next to the site which had been converted to one house and the original
farmhouse constituted an established cluster of 5 houses or more. The other houses
referred to in the applicant’s submission were a significant distance away from the
site and did not create a defined cluster. The FPRB therefore concluded that the
principle of housing at this location was not supported by the Development Plan.
3.3
The Review Body also considered the applicant’s assertion that the site was a
brownfield site whereby development is supported even in this countryside location.
It was noted that there was a history of quarrying in the vicinity but there was no
evidence remaining at the applicant’s site. In these circumstances a brownfield site
that has been restored is classed as greenfield again. In any event there is no policy
criterion within E15 or E16 that establishes a presumption in favour of developing
brownfield land. In addition to this the FPRB gave some weight to an earlier decision
taken by the FPRB for the same site (albeit for a different house design) The
previous review had upheld the original refusal.
3.4
The FPRB then considered the other issues relating to road safety. They were
aware of the policies set out in the Adopted Local Plan that sought to ensure that
new development was sited where the road network could accommodate additional
traffic and that new accesses complied with the terms of the Transportation
-3Development Guidelines with regard to construction details, parking and access
visibility. The public road immediately adjacent to the site, the Q34, joins the A915 at
a point where the visibility in both directions is restricted by the geometry and
topography of the road.
3.5The FPRB were concerned regarding the increase in the use of the Q34 without an
improvement to its junction with the A915. They considered that the small touring
caravan site which operates from the site already gave rise to traffic to which the
traffic generated by the review proposal would only add. It was confirmed that the
caravan site did not have a planning permission as it operated under the permitted
development rights relating to the terms of the Caravan Sites and Control of
Development Act 1960. The road safety implications of developing the house did not
therefore comply with the Adopted Local Plan. The FPRB therefore agreed that the
increased use of the Q34 would be to the detriment of road safety and did not
therefore comply with the Adopted Local Plan.
3.6
The FPRB were aware that the site was within a Local Landscape Area whereby
Policy E19 of the Adopted Local Plan was particularly relevant. The FPRB noted
that this policy only supports development which is of high quality and where it has
no significant adverse affect on the identified landscape qualities of the area and/or
its overall landscape integrity and setting. The FPRB considered that the design of
the house as shown respected its proposed location next to the stone and pantile
converted steading building and that the finishing materials proposed, including the
use of red concrete roof tiles, would have no detrimental visual impact on the
surrounding Local Landscape Area.
The FPRB therefore agreed with the
assessment of the design of the house as set out in the Report of Handling and
considered that the development did comply with the policy provisions of the
Adopted Local Plan.
3.7
The FPRB also considered the other matters referred to in the Report of Handling
being residential amenity and impact on privacy, private garden ground, loss of
agricultural land, contaminated land issues, education provisions, water and
drainage and proximity to a hazardous pipeline. The Report of Handling had
demonstrated these matters did not lead to a reason for refusal and the FPRB
agreed with that assessment.
3.8
In summary, therefore, the FPRB agreed with the reasons for refusal given by the
Appointed Officer, and determined that the proposal did not comply with the
Development Plan with respect to the principle of development within the countryside
and road safety.
4.0
Reason for Refusal
4.1
The FPRB decided that planning permission should be refused for the reasons as
set out in the original decision made by the Appointed Officer as set out below
1. In the interest of safeguarding the countryside from unjustified development; the
site lies outwith any designated settlement boundary and is not zoned for residential
development. The proposed dwellinghouse would therefore be contrary to the
guidance contained within Policies E1, E15 and E16 of the Adopted St Andrews and
East Fife Local Plan (2012), Fife Council's Planning Customer Guidelines on
Housing Development in the Countryside (2010) and Scottish Planning Policy
(2010).
-4-
2. In the interests of safeguarding the countryside from unjustified development; the
proposed development would not be in a clearly defined cluster of 5 or more
dwellinghouses, would not be warranted by the needs of agriculture or forestry
operations and would result in the erosion of the existing rural landscape.
Furthermore, the proposal would not contribute to the overall enhancement or
retention of the rural landscape and would set an undesirable precedent for housing
in the countryside; all contrary to Policies E1, E15 and E16 of the Adopted St
Andrews and East Fife Local Plan (2012), Fife Council's Planning Customer
Guidelines on Housing Development in the Countryside (2010) and Scottish
Planning Policy (2010).
3. In the interests of road safety; there is insufficient visibility at the access onto the
Q34 public road and at the junction of the Q34 and A915 with both junctions
restricted by permanent features which are outwith the control of the applicant, the
proposed dwellinghouse would be located in an area where more sustainable modes
of transport are not readily available and there is a presumption against the formation
of new accesses or the increase in use of existing vehicular accesses and junctions
to unrestricted distributor roads that are outwith established built up areas and the
Q34 access road is substandard and is therefore unsuitable for serving the proposed
dwellinghouse. This would introduce access traffic manoeuvres which conflict with
traffic movements and hence increase the probability of accidents to the detriment of
road safety; all contrary to Policy T2 of the Adopted St Andrews and East Fife Local
Plan (2012).
………….………………………………………….
Iain Matheson,
Chief Legal Officer
-5-
-6-
NOTICE TO ACCOMPANY REFUSAL ETC.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
Notification to be sent to applicant on refusal of planning permission or
on the grant of permission subject to conditions
NOTICE TO ACCOMPANY REFUSAL ETC.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
Notification to be sent to applicant on determination by the planning authority of an
application following a review conducted under section 43A(8).
1.
If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the planning authority (a)
(b)
(c)
to refuse permission for the proposed development;
to refuse approval, consent or agreement required by a condition imposed on
a grant of planning permission; or
to grant permission or approval, consent or agreement subject to conditions,
the applicant may question the validity of that decision by making an application to
the Court of Session. An application to the Court of Session must be made within 6
weeks of the date of the decision.
2.
If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the
owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably
beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably
beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be
permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase
notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land’s interest in the land in
accordance with Part V of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.