Department Legal and Regulatory Services

NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL
Agenda Item 4.1
Planning Committee
	5 April 2004
Planning Area	Garnock Valley
Reference	03/01116/PP
Application Registered	13 January, 2004
Decision Due	13 March, 2004

Ward

Garnock East : Ian Richardson

1. Description
The applicants propose to construct a 4 metre wide road over a distance of 350 metres from the A736 to Gree Viaduct. Listed building consent for demolition of the former railway viaduct was granted on 24 December 2002 (ref. N/02/00301/LBC). A triangular-shaped compound area is proposed at the east end of the haul road near the viaduct. It is advised that the main purpose of the haul road is to permit the transportation of material from the demolition of the viaduct. The road will be constructed with material from the demolished viaduct and the first 10 metres from Lochlibo Road would be surfaced with a bituminous material. A passing place is proposed midway along the stretch of road. The applicants state that on completion, the access road would be retained for the use of the landowner in the area.


The site is located just over one mile to the north-east of Burnhouse (see attached location plan). The nearest residential properties are Meikleriggs approximately 120 metres to the north and Gree/High Gree approximately 400 metres to the south-west.

In the Adopted Garnock Valley Local Plan, the site is located within a countryside area and is unaffected by any site specific policies or proposals therein. The site is also located within areas identified on the Plan as Lugton Water Wildlife Corridor and Lugton Water Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). It also lies within Listed Wildlife Site number 48 (Lugton Water) which comprises a narrow strip of ground next to the river stretching from Lugton almost to Auchentiber. Local Plan Policy ENV3 is opposed to developments which could affect the natural heritage value of such sites.

In the finalised North Ayrshire Local Plan (excluding Isle of Arran) the site is located within a countryside area and is unaffected by any site specific policies or proposals in the plan. Policy ENV6 (Nature Conservation) state that proposals for development which could affect sites of importance for nature conservation, including wildlife sites, shall be assessed to ensure that appropriate measures are proposed to conserve, as far as possible, the wildlife or habitat interest of the site.

The applicants state that on completion of the works the owner of the ground wishes to retain the haul road and compound for future 'agricultural' development.

2. Consultations and Representations

The applicants have certified that notices have been served on all persons having a notifiable interest in neighbouring land.

Objections

Letters of objection have been received from:-

1) Alastair R Kerr, Meikleriggs, Lochlibo Road, Burnhouse, Beith;
2) Mr L.A. Clark, Meikleriggs, Lochlibo Road, Burnhouse Beith

Grounds

1. Noise and visual disruption would adversely affect residential amenity.

Response - The applicants anticipate that the minimum duration of the demolition works will be ten days and the maximum period will be four months. As indicated above the haul road is some 120 metres from the objector's dwellinghouse and, given the relatively short duration of the works, the occupants of Meikleriggs are unlikely to be seriously affected by noise or visual disruption.

2. Damage to property as a result of vibration caused by heavy plant and possible explosives usage. The objectors' properties are several hundred years old and are not, they claim built on concrete foundations.


Response - Given the intervening distance, there are unlikely to be serious problems associated with vibration from vehicles using the haul road. Nevertheless, the objectors could approach the applicants with a view to undertaking a survey of the buildings before and after the operation to establish, whether, the properties have been affected by the operation. The applicants confirm that explosives will not be used in the demolition of the structure.

3. There would not appear to be any good reason for the demolition as the viaduct is in a reasonable state of repair and demolition will be very expensive.

Response - This is not relevant to the current application. Nevertheless a study was commissioned by the applicants and the viaduct was found to be in extremely poor condition. The study revealed that the cost of repairing the structure far exceeded that of demolition. The applicants further state that it is in such a condition that it would be difficult for a contractors' workforce to safely work on the structure to repair it. Photographic evidence submitted in support of the Listed building application shows substantial deterioration in the fabric of the structure.

4. The viaduct is a relic of Scotland's cultural past and should be retained. If the viaduct is removed and the access ramps remain, they would be a scar on the landscape.

Response - This is not relevant to the current planning application. Listed building consent has been granted for demolition. The approved demolition proposals include removing the structures to one metre below ground level, backfilling with soil to the surrounding field or embankment level and sowing grass.

5. Disruption to burial site - it is understood from local history that several labourers involved in the construction of the viaduct are buried in the structure.

Response - The Council's Cemeteries Services Manager advises that the viaduct is not identified as an official burial ground. If remains are discovered during demolition, the applicants would have to notify the appropriate authorities, e.g, Police, etc.

6. The viaduct is constructed of a mortar/lime concrete mix and the release of this dust may be toxic. For environmental and safety reasons, after demolition the material should remain on site.

Response - The type of materials involved are standard construction materials and there is therefore unlikely to be any significant risk to the health of the occupants of the nearest residential properties while the demolition is taking place. Demolition operatives would have to follow health and safety guidance in relation to the use of protective equipment. Given the intervening distances, the occupants of the nearest houses are unlikely to be seriously affected by the generation of dust from the demolition. Retaining the demolished materials on site would, it is considered, to be detrimental to the amenity of the area.


Roads - No objection subject to sightlines of 2.5 metres x 215 metres in both directions being provided and maintained at the junction with the public road, the first 12 metres of the haul road having a maximum gradient of 2%, no surface water issuing from the access on to the public road and no deleterious materials being deposited on to the public highway.

Response - The sightlines can be provided within land under the applicant's control. Conditions could be imposed to ensure that the access is constructed to roads standards with regard to gradient, surface water and the deposition of loose materials on the public highway.

Scottish Wildlife Trust, East Ayrshire Council - No response to date.

3. Analysis

The main determining issues in this case are the implications for road safety and compliance with local plan policy.

With regard to road safety, the standard of access design is acceptable to Roads Services and the required sightlines in both directions can be achieved. Traffic generated by the demolition work should not therefore have any adverse implications for road safety.

The applicable local plan policies are ENV3 of the Adopted Local Plan, ENV6 of the Finalised Local Plan. The relevant criteria of the Development Control Statement are the implications for visual amenity and the effects of noise and vibration.

With regard to ENV3, the access road and proposed compound area would occupy grazing fields and the compound would be situated 120 metres from the Lugton Water. The wildlife and habit interests of Lugton Water Wildlife Corridor and SINC and also the Listed Wildlife Site are unlikely therefore to be significantly affected by the proposed operations. The proposal therefore accords with ENV3. For similar reasons the proposals accord with the terms of Policy ENV6 of the Finalised Local Plan. With regard to the relevant criteria of the Development Control Statement, the implications for visual amenity should not be severe in view of the relatively short duration of the demolition operation. As indicated above, given the substantial distance between the haul road and nearest housing and the temporary nature of the operations, the amenity of the residential property should not be seriously affected by reason of noise and vibration. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing the proposals accord with the Finalised Local Plan.

Therefore it is considered that planning permission can be granted, subject to conditions to secure the requirement of road services in relation to the provision of sightlines and the design and construction of the access.

In the interest of the amenity of the area, it is considered that the proposed compound area should be re-instated to agricultural use. The applicants have indicted that the owner of the land wishes to retain the haul road as a means of accessing his land and there is no objection to this proposal.


The landowner, however, also wishes to retain the compound area for an unspecified 'agricultural-related' business development. The compound area is isolated from other developments and is located in an area of relatively unspoiled countryside. In the interest of the amenity of the area therefore a condition should be imposed to secure the restoration of the site to its former agricultural condition following the completion of the demolition works. I consider that 3 months is a reasonable period to allow for the implementation of the restoration works.

4. Full Recommendation

See Appendix 1.

Ian T Mackay Assistant Chief Executive

Legal and Protective Services
Cunninghame House, Irvine
23 March 2004