Consideration was given to a Notice of Review received in respect of the Planning Authority’s decision to refuse planning permission for the erection of a single-storey dwellinghouse and associated works at a site on the eastern boundary of No 2 Johnshill, East End, Lochwinnoch. (23/0179/PP). 

The Convener reminded members that this review had first been considered at a meeting of the LRB held on 30 January 2024 when the LRB had decided that it was unable to determine the review without further procedure and determined that the review should proceed by means of written submission and also by means of an unaccompanied inspection of the land to which the review related. That site visit had taken place on 14 March 2024. 

In terms of further written submission, two procedure notices had been issued following the meeting.  The first to the Appointed Officer who had made the planning decision, which was under review, in relation to further representations that had been provided by the interested parties in response to the review.  At the previous meeting the independent Legal Advisor had explained that interested parties had the right to make further representations upon being notified of a review having been received and that this right had been exercised with a number of further representations having been received. The LRB was advised that it appeared these further representations contained matters which appeared to be new, in that they were not matters which were before the appointed officer when the original decision had been made. The LRB was further advised that there was a general prohibition on raising new matters in a review but that this did not apply where the matter was raised pursuant to a requirement or an entitlement to have regard to the development plan or any other material consideration. 

The LRB was informed that it required to firstly determine in relation to the further representations whether they contained any matters that were not before the appointed officer, “new matters” and if so whether these had been raised pursuant to a requirement or an entitlement to have regard to the development plan or any other material consideration. In order to assist the LRB in that exercise, the Appointed Officer who made the original decision had provided written submissions setting out what matters within those further representations the officer considered were not before him when they made their decision and also, in the officer’s view, whether these had been raised pursuant to a requirement or an entitlement to have regard to the development plan or any other material consideration. In this regard, the LRB agreed that the views of the Appointed Officer, as detailed in the response, contained within the agenda be accepted as the LRB’s position. Members of the LRB accordingly only considered the new matter raised within the further representations relating to proposals for the site at 2 Johnshill, Lochwinnoch. 

The second procedure notice issued related to supplementary material submitted by the applicant in respect of measures to mitigate tree loss. Members had been of the view that they did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate these measures and accordingly directed the Council’s Tree and Woodland Officer to provide an assessment of the proposals. It was noted that his response to the Procedure Notice had been provided, although not within the time specified by the LRB, and that the appellant had been afforded the statutory 14 days to comment on the response. Members of the LRB indicated that the views of the Council’s Tree and Woodland Officer, as outlined within the response, and the comments submitted by the appellant thereon be taken into account in assessing the development proposal.

The following materials were before members in relation to the Notice of Review: 
 
(i) the Planning Authority’s submission, which included the report of handling, accompanying documents and decision notice;   
 
(ii) the Notice of Review, together with supporting statement and productions submitted by the applicant;

(iii) the further representations received from interested parties;

(iv) the appellant’s response to the further representations received from interested parties;

(v) the Procedure Notice seeking further information from the Appointed Officer together with the response;

(vi) the appellant’s comments regarding the Appointed Officer’s response;

(vii) the Procedure Notice seeking further information from the Tree & Woodland Officer together with the response; 

(viii) the appellant’s comments regarding the Tree & Woodland Officer’s response.

The Convener confirmed that the LRB required to decide whether it had sufficient information before it to make a decision on this matter or whether further procedure was required to allow the LRB to determine LRB02.24/Planning Application 22/0179/PP. It was agreed that the LRB had sufficient information before it to reach a decision.

The Convener then advised that the LRB required to determine the application in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, including any supplementary guidance, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

Following consideration, the Convener proposed that the application be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of handling prepared by the Planning Case Officer and included within the papers circulated prior to the meeting. This was agreed unanimously.

DECIDED:  That LRB02.24/Planning Application 22/0179/PP be refused as the proposal does not fully accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and other material considerations were not considered to carry sufficient weight to justify the grant of planning permission for the following reasons;

(a) The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 7 'Historic Assets and Places', of NPF 4 as the proposed development is likely to lead to the loss of woodland, a natural feature which makes a positive contribution to the character of the historic area;
 
(b) The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 9 'Brownfield land, vacant and derelict land, and empty buildings' of NPF 4 as the application site is considered to have high ecological value as it has been naturalised with woodland and the proposal is likely to lead to the loss of trees, which make a positive contribution to the character of the area; 

(c) The proposed development is inappropriate and contrary to the provisions of Policy P1 of the adopted Local Development Plan and the New Development Supplementary Guidance Places Development Criteria given the proximity of the trees to the development the trees health and safety cannot be adequately protected; 

(d) The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policies ENV2 – Natural Heritage and ENV3 - Built and Cultural Heritage of the adopted Local Development Plan, the New Development Supplementary Guidance Conservation Areas, Trees, Woodland and Forestry and Natural Heritage and the provisions of Historic Scotland's guidance on 'Setting' and 'New Development in Historic Settings as the trees within the application site make a valuable contribution to the setting of 'Auld Simon' and the Lochwinnoch Conservation Area generally and the proposed development is likely to lead to the loss of part of this woodland which would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Category B listed 'Auld Simon' and the setting of the Conservation Area generally and these trees should be safeguarded; and 

(e) The proposed development is inappropriate and contrary to the provisions of Renfrewshire's Planning and Development Tree Policy 2022 as there is no over-riding justification for the construction of the proposed dwellinghouse in proximity to trees and the development is likely to adversely affect the natural development and health of the trees remaining.