Two houses with garages at Land To West Of West Harwood, West Calder

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for two houses using existing building footprints and partly reusing existing walls, with garages and parking.

“Planning permission in principle for the erection of 2 houses within footprints of existing building(s) with partial conversion/reuse of existing walls at Land to west of West Harwood, West Calder, EH55 8LF.”

“The current proposal involves the redevelopment of an existing storage building into two semi- detached houses with partial conversion/ reuse of existing walls. The application also comprises the erection of two detached garages, with a carport and three parking spaces between them. The surface between the houses and garages is to be laid with monoblock.”

Officer report

The site

The site was west of West Harwood, within the countryside, and included a former agricultural building and associated paddocks.

“The site is located west of West Harwood and east of No. West Harwood Crofts and consists of a former agricultural building and associated paddocks.”

“The site is within the countryside. The farm at West Harwood was restructured many years ago under the council's 'lowland crofting' policy which allowed a limited number of housing units in generously sized plots with substantial woodland planting and access paths, a focus on new planting, nature conservation measures and greater public access.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

One earlier proposal was withdrawn, while two applications for two houses were refused, including one dismissed at appeal.

“0759/P/24- Planning permission in principle for the erection of 2 houses with associated works- refused on 2/12/2024 and dismissed at LRB appeal;”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal was unjustified countryside development, harmed rural character, increased car dependence, and left contamination and flood matters unresolved.

“Unjustified development in the countryside 8.1 While the proposal gains some support from NPF4 Policy 17, in that it involves the reuse of a redundant or unused building in the countryside, it must also be assessed in the context of the surrounding rural character and amenity. The structural survey submitted by the applicant confirms that the outbuildings are in structurally stable condition.”

“Additionally, the development would exceed the approved 13 crofting plots to be developed at West Harwood Crofts. As a result, the proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site and is not appropriate as it would harm the character of the countryside and impact on the rural amenity of the area. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 17 and LDP Policy ENV2 and SG Development in the Countryside.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Contamination and flood-risk consultees objected, ecology requested further information, and roads and mining consultees raised no objection.

“Consultee Objection? Comments Planning Response Mining Remediation Authority No Mining Remediation Authority confirmed the site is within the Development High Risk Area, however there has been no objection to the proposal. Noted. Contaminated Land Advisor Yes The desk study needs updated. Intrusive investigation works are required. Noted.”

“In particular, the submission does not meet the minimum requirements set out in the technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders- SEPA Requirements for Undertaking a Flood Risk Assessment. Noted. The applicant has not been asked to provide further information as the recommendation is to refuse the proposal. CONSULTATIONS”

Officer report

Objections

Four objections cited harm to the low-density rural setting, suburbanisation, car dependency, flooding, policy conflict and the existing buildings’ possible reuse.

“Four objections have been received, and the details are listed below.”

“Comments Response The development will undermine the low-density principles of the original crofting development and would detract from the overall rural setting of the area, adversely impacting the rural aspect that currently defines the area. Agreed. The development is not justified within the countryside. Agreed. The development will result in suburbanisation of a rural area and increase car dependency to and from the site. Agreed.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent spoke in support, and the applicant was available to answer members’ questions.

The committee debate

A motion proposed refusal for the report’s reasons, while an amendment proposed approval with conditions and further technical reports.

“Motion To refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined in the committee report - Moved by Councillor Tony Boyle and seconded by Councillor Conn Amendment To grant planning permission as the proposal did conform to NPF4 policies 2 (Climate mitigation and adaption), 3 (Biodiversity), 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings), 13 (Sustainable Transport), 14 (Design, quality, place); and 15 (Local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods), with conditions…”

“- Moved by Councillor Willie Boyle and seconded by Councillor Clark An electronic vote was conducted. The result was as follows :- Motion Amendment Tony Boyle Harry Cartmill Tom Conn George Paul Willie Boyle Pauline Clark Decision Following a vote, the motion was successful by 4 votes to 2 and it was agreed accordingly.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission in principle was refused for the reasons outlined in the committee report.

“1002/P/25 The committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Head of Planning, Economic Development and Regeneration concerning an application as follows:- Application No. Proposal Recommendation 1002/P/25 Planning permission in principle for the erection of 2 houses within footprints of existing building(s) with partial conversion/reuse of existing walls, land to west of West Harwood.”

Minutes