One house at Land North Of Speedwell House Main Road, Dirleton

What was proposed

Permission was sought for one single-storey house with associated works, access from the existing private road and retention of the surrounding hedge.

“Planning permission is again sought for the erection of one house on the same application site as the previously refused applications Ref: 21/01364/P and 06/00945/FUL, and for associated works.”

“The proposed house would be served by an access road running from the existing private access road which serves the house which lies between the site and the main road. The access road would run into the site at the southeast corner and from there it would meet a turning area to the east of the proposed dwelling. The existing Leylandii hedge surrounding the site would be retained.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The flat grassed site is about 0.4 hectares, surrounded mainly by agricultural land, and lies within Dirleton’s settlement and conservation area.

“Application no. 25/00388/P Proposal Erection of one house and associated works Location Land North of Speedwell House Main Road Dirleton East Lothian A pplicant [name withheld] r APT Planning & Development RE COMMENDATION Application Refused REPORT OF HANDLING The appl ication site is an area of grassed land with tall Leylandii hedging planted around its boundaries.”

“The application site is within an area defined by Policy RCA1: Residential Character and Amenity of the adopted East Lothian Local Development Plan 2018 and is within the Dirleton Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and hedge notice

Earlier housing proposals were refused or withdrawn, a later one-house refusal was upheld on appeal, and a high hedge notice was approved.

“In April 2022 planning application Ref: 21/01364/P was refused under delegated powers, for the erection of one house with integral garage and associated works on the application site. The house was proposed to be positioned towards the northern end of the site and was to be single storey in height, formed from two pitched roofed components each some 6.3m in height and connected by a lower link element.”

“In October 2024 application 24/00003/HHN approved the service of a High Hedge Notice on the application site which required the hedge owner to: a. Initial Actions: The first 23m of Hedge A from the southwest corner should be reduced incrementally over a phased period of time to no higher than 3.2m in height from ground level. Period for Compliance: two-year period (from the date in which the notice takes effect). b.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that the proposal remained a conspicuous and incongruous outward extension that would not preserve or enhance the conservation area.

“The refusal of planning application Ref: 21/01364/P further concluded that the proposed development would be a conspicuous and incongruous outward extension of Dirleton, harmful to the form, character and appearance of the Village and of the Conservation Area and would not preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic character or appearance of the Dirleton Conservation Area.”

“Consequently, as the proposal is so similar in character to the previously refused planning applications - Ref: 06/00945/FUL and 21/01364/P - and as the Development Plan Policy on development in the conservation area has been strengthened by the introduction of Policy 7 of NPF4 then the fundamental reasons for the refusal of those applications that "the proposed development would be a conspicuous and incongruous outward extension of Dirleton, harmful to the form, character…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent challenged the assessment and supported the house, while a local member spoke against refusal and another local member supported those points.

What members discussed

Members considered precedent, the settlement boundary, changes to Dirleton, the land’s use, family homes and controls for trees and hedges.

“Other Planning Committee members discussed: the potential for setting a precedent; the need to take the application on its own merits; the changes to Dirleton following new housebuilding; the location of the development within the settlement boundary; the importance of managing the trees; their contentment for officers to work with the applicant to determine matters relating to trees; the difficulties in growing anything on such a site; the proposal being a beneficial use of…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted against the officer’s recommendation to refuse, with one councillor voting to support refusal.

“The Convener then moved to a roll call vote, and Committee members voted against the officer’s recommendation to refuse consent, except for Councillor Forrest, who voted in support of the officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes

What was decided

Planning permission was granted, subject to conditions covering the start date, setting out, carbon reduction, biodiversity, materials, landscaping and tree protection.

“Planning Committee agreed to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:”

“No development shall take place on site until temporary protective fencing in accordance with Figure 2 of British Standard 5837_2012 “Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction” and temporary ground protection has been installed, approved and confirmed in writing by the Planning Authority. The position of this fencing and ground protection must be as indicated on a ‘Tree Protection Plan’ to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.”

Minutes