An appeal over the refusal of plans for three new homes near Ayr has been upheld by councillors. The application sought planning permission in principle for three dwellinghouses on land adjacent to 4 Belston Holdings, off the B744 from the A70 junction at Belston to Weston Avenue, Annbank.
Initial refusal and objections
Planning officers had refused the application in April, concluding that the site was part of a larger agricultural field and did not form an infill or gap site within a recognised housing cluster. The report said the proposed homes would create around 139 metres of roadside development and would have a “suburbanising effect” on the countryside.
The report also said the proposal conflicted with both national and local development guidance because planners did not consider it to be within a clearly defined cluster of homes. One objection was received, raising concerns about the impact on the rural character of the area, loss of agricultural land, potential loss of hedgerow and the possibility of setting a precedent for further road frontage development.
Appeal arguments and site visit
However, the applicant’s agent, Stairhill Architecture Ltd, argued that the site sat within an existing cluster at Belston Holdings and represented a suitable gap-fill development. The review statement said the proposal was “a perfect case for in-filling of a gap site in an existing cluster” and disputed the officer’s assessment of the settlement pattern.
Members of the Local Review Body had continued the case from an earlier meeting to allow a site visit, which took place in September. During the meeting, councillors said the visit had helped them understand the layout of the nearby houses and the relationship between the site and surrounding properties.
Councillors' views
Councillor Alec Clark pointed out the issue of what constitutes a ‘cluster’ had been discussed several times in other applications. He continued: “It was a particularly fine day, I have to say, when we went out on the site visit and it enabled us to see the proposed site from various angles.
“There are a number of buildings there and looking along the hedgerow, there was a natural boundary. In LDP2, there’s a flexibility built in to allow a bit more flexible applications in the rural area and I think this, to me, is one where that applies.”
He added: “As I see the properties around about the various parts there, also at the other side of the road, there are another two properties in there. So to me we are already supporting a cluster there. In my view, I think this would be a benefit rather than a hindrance.”
Councillor Alan Lamont said the site visit had helped address concerns about the road. They said: “When we were there it gives a real understanding of the location. What I was quite encouraged with is the site’s not on any blind bend. You can hear the traffic and then when you actually put your head up to have a look, there’s some distance away, so you’re actually catching them plenty of time, which is quite encouraging because I was worried about the road there.”
Councillor Martin Kilride questioned the officer assessment that nearby houses were sporadic. He said: “As you come in there’s four and five on the right hand side, as Councillor Clark said, the left hand side there’s two different properties there. It’s not sporadic housing in the middle of open fields. There is some form of community there.”
Councillor Ian Cavana said: “It does say agricultural land but it doesn’t look as though it’s ever been agricultural land. The only problem that I had was access from the road, because we have a big hedgeline there, but really I don’t see any problem with this.”
Decision and conditions
The report before members said Ayrshire Roads Alliance had no objection, while Scottish Water and Prestwick Airport also raised no objection. Ayrshire Roads Alliance’s flooding response raised no objection subject to mitigation measures from the flood risk information being built into the development.
Because the application was for planning permission in principle, detailed design, access and landscaping matters would still require further approval. Councillor Clark moved that the Local Review Body overturn the officer’s refusal and approve the application, subject to conditions. The review body approved the application by four votes to nil.
